Benton City Council weighs options to fix encroachments and safety problems on 6th Street

Public works staff Nathan outlined a detailed review of 6th Street, telling the Benton City Council on July 29 that the approved right‑of‑way is 40 feet while the paved width measures roughly 16 feet in places and multiple private fences, mature trees and a storage building encroach 4–6 feet onto city property. “So 440,000 for Central Washington Asphalt for the chip seal projects is the bulk of it,” Nathan said when council reviewed the consent packet, then shifted to show maps and photos of the 6th Street parcels and where fences and trees sit inside the right‑of‑way.

The council heard that one property owner has had a survey done and has expressed interest in subdividing or short‑platting, a change that would trigger curb, gutter and sidewalk design requirements. Nathan said developers must meet city design standards when they submit applications but noted challenges: several structures near the edge of the right‑of‑way appear not to sit on foundations and utilities (including power poles) sit on or immediately adjacent to the right‑of‑way. Nathan said TIB declined a request to rubbleize and repave the street and that grant or loan options such as USDA or other programs might be explored, but he warned funding opportunities are limited for a local neighborhood street.

Council members and one long comment from a council speaker emphasized safety and access concerns. One council member described narrow pavement, overhanging trees and parked vehicles that force school buses and larger vehicles into the center of the lane and said additional residences on a subdivided lot would bring dozens more vehicle trips to an already constrained roadway. The speaker urged that developers, not neighbors, bear the upfront cost to bring the street and abutting properties into compliance: “If we’re gonna do urban growth, we need to do it under the ordinances,” the councilmember said.

Nathan outlined three enforcement and financing options: seek full right‑of‑way compliance and require property owners to remove fences and other encroachments; form a local improvement district (LID) that would require property‑owner sign‑off and cost participation; or allow variances or deferrals in limited cases. He also flagged engineering concerns about drainage and elevations if work occurs piecemeal and recommended the city avoid fragmented improvements that could require later rework. “That would be the preference, definitely,” Nathan said when council asked whether utilities should be placed underground if the street is redeveloped.

Council and staff also reviewed code provisions about vegetation and sidewalk responsibility; a staff member located relevant city code (12.05.0.04 and related sidewalk/maintenance sections) indicating property owners are generally responsible for maintenance up to the edge of pavement unless the right‑of‑way is developed with curb and sidewalk, in which case responsibility shifts to the back of curb. Council asked staff to produce a clear memo with the exact code citations and enforcement options.

Next steps: Nathan agreed to prepare a more comprehensive report that will include a cost estimate for developing the full street to code, options for visualizing the proposed changes for neighbors, and further research into funding sources and utility relocation costs. Staff said it would consider moving forward with a compliance request for a fence already the subject of a citizen action request once a formal development application is filed. Nathan said he expects to return to council with a follow‑up report in late October after an IACC conference.