Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District debate continues

A few days ago I blogged about newly-elected city councilor Jackie Leung's effort to fulfill a campaign promise by attempting to get the Salem City Council to reconsider its decision to form a Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District.

The Reimbursement District would raise money to pay for road improvements by collecting between about $4,000 and $10,000 from lot owners in the south Salem area when a home is built on their property.

It's unclear whether the City Council will undertake a reconsideration of the Reimbursement District, which has to be done at next Tuesday's council meeting, because an agenda item implements the decision that passed on a 5-4 vote on May 14.

One of the five council members who voted for the Reimbursement District would have to make a motion to reconsider the vote: Mayor Chuck Bennett, or councilors Brad Nanke, Sally Cook, Steve McCoid, and Chris Hoy. 

After residents in the Creekside neighborhood began emailing City officials, urging that the Reimbursement District be reconsidered and overturned, they got this response from Tami Carpenter, the City Manager's Executive Assistant.

Thank you for your email to the City Council. We understand your concern regarding the possible closure and development of Creekside Golf Course. This however, is a private property matter that, as you know, has been playing out in the courts.

 

The City Council does not have authority to stop the golf course owners from closing the facility. If the golf course is redeveloped, it will then have to meet current development standards and be subject to administrative and possible City Council reviews, as warranted.

 

The issue of funding construction of Lone Oak Road extension with a reimbursement district has been comingled with the possible closure of the golf course. The City Council’s decision has no bearing on the future of the golf course. The decision simply states that if—and only if—the golf course is redeveloped then a fee will be assessed on the new lots to pay for a portion of the street construction. The fee will also be assessed on new subdivision developments south of Jory Creek.

 

Additional funding from other development fees has also been allocated to the project. The existing Creekside owners are not subject to the fee, nor are any existing Salem residents subject to the fee or assessment for this project. Thank you again for your email,

Tami Carpenter
Executive Assistant to the City Manager Mayor/City Manager’s Office

503-588-6255 [email protected]

Since I've followed this issue closely, a Creekside resident contacted me and asked if I'd prepare a reply that could be posted on the Creekside NextDoor site. Here's what I wrote and sent to the resident yesterday.

The City Manager’s Executive Assistant has claimed that approval of the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District “has no bearing on the future of the golf course.” 

 

Well, this requires a belief that City officials don’t care one way or the other whether the golf course property becomes a housing development. But in fact, almost a third of the money expected to be raised by the Reimbursement District (29%) comes from an assumption that 210 lots on what is now the Creekside golf course will be developed as home sites, thereby paying $1,935,000 into the Reimbursement District.

 

City officials shouldn’t have a vested interest in whether the golf course becomes a subdivision. However, they do — even though a final decision on this issue awaits a legal ruling. 

 

The City of Salem is assuming that 210 lots will be developed on the golf course property prior to the legal ruling, prior to plans being submitted for a subdivision, prior to public hearings on what sort of development, if any, is suitable for an area prone to flooding, 

 

Yet the City Manager’s office would have us believe that City officials are completely neutral on the question of what happens to the golf course property, notwithstanding the fact that the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District is dependent on 210 lots being developed on the property in order to raise sufficient funds to construct road improvements.

 

Further, after initially saying that money for those improvements could be raised through a future citywide Streets and Bridges bond should sufficient money be lacking in the Reimbursement District fund, City officials now state that this option is off the table. 

 

This makes development of the golf course into a 210 lot subdivision essential if a bridge over Jory Creek and the northern extension of Lone Oak Road are to be built, since City officials have shown no interest in making the Creekside developer foot the bill. 

 

So it sure seems like the City of Salem has already come to a premature conclusion that development of the golf course into a subdivision needs to happen, thereby putting a thumb on the scale of impartiality that citizens should expect of public officials. 

Today I realized that I wanted to share some arguments with City officials about why the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District is a bad idea. This is the message that went to members of the City Council and key City of Salem staff. 

Mayor Bennett and city councilors, I realize that you probably think that everything that could be said about the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District already has been said.

Actually, I agree with you. 

 

Before the Memorial Day weekend arrives, I simply want to share a couple of things that have been said about the Reimbursement District that bear on the question of whether the City Council should reconsider, once again, it’s approval of the District 

 

These two items are a strong argument in favor of reconsidering and revoking the Reimbursement District, so I wanted to bring them to your attention.

 

(1) At the May 14 City Council meeting, Councilor Sally Cook asked what the process would be for funding Lone Oak Road if the Reimbursement District didn’t exist. Public Works Director Peter Fernandez gave this response:

“We probably would see the southern leg built, because there are a couple of subdivisions coming in that, you know, need to put pieces of it in, and we could probably make that happen.

 

We would struggle financially with getting the bridge [over Jory Creek] built. SDC’s [System Development Charges] would be applied, but there wouldn’t be any leverage, so you see the math that Mr. Davis showed you. We’d be waiting a long time for the bridge, but you’d probably get the southern leg built.”

 

Here’s a screenshot of a slide that shows the southern leg, which passes right by one of the subdivisions, and apparently through the west side of the other subdivision. So it certainly does seem that those subdivisions would build the southern extension of Lone Oak Road even if the Reimbursement District didn’t exist. 

 

(2) Regarding the bridge and northern extension of Lone Oak Road, here’s the flawed logic of the Reimbursement District. A large share of the funds expected to be raised by the Reimbursement District, 29%, are to come from the development of 210 lots on what is now the Creekside golf course. 

 

Yet if the golf course is developed, the South Gateway Neighborhood Association pointed out in a letter to the City Council that it would make much more sense if Lone Oak Road were to run through the flat land of the golf course property, which wouldn’t require building a bridge, and the northern extension could be made the responsibility of the Creekside developer. 

 

Here’s a screenshot of a portion of the SGNA letter. It was written when City staff were saying that the northern extension likely would be part of a future Streets and Bridges bond, which now is off the table according to staff:

 

 

Here’s an image of how Lone Oak Road could be realigned to run through what is now the golf course property.

 

 

So if the golf course is converted to a subdivision, there wouldn’t be a need for a Reimbursement District to fund a bridge and northern extension of Lone Oak Road, because a much less expensive extension could be built on the west side of the golf course property, with the cost paid by the Creekside developer and SDCs.

 

And if the property remains a golf course, almost certainly there won’t be enough money in the Reimbursement District to fund the $5.6 million cost of a bridge over Jory Creek and the northern extension of Lone Oak Road, since $1,935,000 would never accrue to the District from 210 lots in a subdivision constructed on the golf course property.

 

In summary, then: 

 

City staff have said that the southern extension of Lone Oak Road likely would be built if there wasn’t a Reimbursement District. And the northern extension likely only could be built if the golf course becomes a subdivision, in which case it would make much more sense to run Lone Oak Road through the flat golf course property, as SGNA advises, thereby eliminating the need for a Reimbursement District for the bridge and northern leg. 

 

Hence, there's no need for the Lone Oak Road Reimbursement District.

 

    — Brian Hines

Comments

[Geoffrey James]

As I understand it, Lone Oak Road and the needed bridge over the creek are Private, i.e would be privately owned and maintained. They are needed as a second exit from the area, in case of an emergency. However I oppose the use of public SDC's systems development charges to fund private roads and bridges. Each new dwelling in the City pays $15,000 in SDC's. These funds are accumulated for construction of public infrastructure, roads and utilities, and are not for funding private bridges that a private developer has successfully and cleverly avoided paying for, even though it was a condition of subdivision and development approval. Also, I disagree that the "golf course development" should be exempt. If it happens, then those lots need to fund the bridge. Actually, the golf course is a vital component in our storm water control, so really should be left as undeveloped open space, and configured as a storm water control area. Leave our SDC's alone. They are for public improvements, not to subsidize clever big developers who would rather not pay for their responsibilities like constructing the required access.

[Rick Berkobien]

I live in Creekside, and am opposed to the course being developed. I am not a golfer nor belong to The Club, but am opposed for reasons stated by others (flooding, traffic, loss of green space). Creekside is involved in a lawsuit to keep it a golf course. We hope to prevail in appellate court….and/or perhaps, before, the owner may not have wanted to contend with the expenses of a long legal battle. However, I think the Council creating a Reimbursement District now ups the ante for the owner to take this legal battle all the way. The owner no longer would be on the hook to pay for road and bridge work, as he should, but now could (by dividing the course into homes) “cost shift” his responsibility to individual lot owner home builders. Appears the Council is setting up a scenario that may reward one side of this legal issue. I am not an expert on these issues, so perhaps have it all wrong. If so, someone please educate me. Thanks.