Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney presents draft petition to advance Oakland View Estates road improvements
Summary
City attorney John Cleveland presented a draft petition to support a special assessment process for completing streets in Oakland View Estates; commissioners asked staff to collect signatures from lot owners and return with a revised petition and next steps.
John Cleveland, the city attorney, reviewed a draft petition that would allow the city to begin using the statutory special-assessment process to finish streets in the Oakland View Estates subdivision. The petition sets out parcel owners and asks the city to consider improving the roads and charging property owners through a special assessment.
Cleveland told commissioners, “What you've been provided is a draft of a petition.” He said the statute permits the process to begin with a petition but does not require one, and that the drafted petition “includes everything that a petition is supposed to” except a developer signature that the attorney said is unlikely to be obtained.
The petition as drafted names owners of lots described as “undeveloped parcels,” but commissioners and residents clarified that the signatures will come from owners of improved lots (owners who currently live there). A resident who identified themselves as a homeowner in the neighborhood urged the inclusion of signature lines for every lot so each owner can decide whether to sign. Commissioner Jim Stutz and other members said they favored giving every owner “the opportunity to sign this.”
Cleveland cautioned that the eventual resolution the commission would adopt if it proceeds must include technical details not in the petition, such as whether interest will be charged on the city’s cost and how liens will be handled; he said the resolution is the document that creates the lien and that it would be recorded in the register of deeds. Commissioners discussed whether liens would be applied only to lots still owned by a successor developer; Cleveland confirmed that liens would be filed against lots still owned by the successor developer (unsold parcels) and explained the difference between “undeveloped,” “unimproved,” and “improved” in the draft petition language.
Board members also reviewed the engineering standard to be applied. Cleveland and commissioners noted that subdivision rules have changed: earlier plats called for a 1-inch top coat; current subdivision regulations require a 1.5- or 2-inch compacted wearing surface. Commissioners asked whether an inch-and-a-half bid could be made to work with some “feathering” around manholes and water meters; Cleveland said an inch-and-a-half overlay could likely be made to work with adjustments.
On financing options, a commissioner raised whether a tax-increment financing (TIF) approach might be possible. Cleveland said a TIF statute his office reviewed appears to require an anticipated economic impact threshold—he said he believed that threshold was about $20 million—making TIF unlikely for a small subdivision like Oakland View Estates. He also urged caution about opening a broadly available residential TIF policy because it could invite requests from unrelated future development.
Action and next steps: commissioners asked staff and Cleveland to add signature lines to the draft petition to allow every lot owner the option to sign, to coordinate with resident volunteers to gather signatures, and to return with an updated document and recommendations on the resolution and funding mechanics. Cleveland said he would update the petition to reflect those changes.
