El Dorado commission approves special assessments after residents protest disclosure and cost

The El Dorado City Commission voted March 2 to spread special assessments for internal street and sewer improvements in the Adelsberger/Smith Phase 3 improvement district after a public hearing in which several new homeowners said they had not been adequately informed about pending charges.

Residents including Darlene Andrews, Caroline Cooper and Jamie Kuntz told the commission they were surprised by the size and timing of the assessments, saying realtors and the developer had not made the special assessments or rebate status clear at closing. “I live at 720 Finney … there was nothing in writing that we were gonna have to pay that in taxes,” said Darlene Andrews.

City staff and project representatives explained the improvement-district process and how costs are allocated. Scott (city staff) said the district was created at the developer’s petition to extend infrastructure and that the city previously temporarily financed the project; the city plans to spread the final costs over 20 years and issue a bond to pay the outstanding note. Scott said letters with final assessment amounts will be mailed before August 2026 and property owners may pay in full, pay a portion, or allow the assessment to go on the tax roll as a special assessment.

Several residents asked about interest and annual charges; staff said the bond sale date will determine the interest rate and provided an approximate guidance of about 3.5 percent. Caroline Cooper, who recently bought a home in the area, asked whether a $5,753 charge was an annual fee; staff clarified it was part of the one-time assessment amount that will be spread into annual tax statements over 20 years.

Residents also raised questions about eligibility for the city’s NRP rebate program after the developer’s tax delinquencies. Leslie Howland and others asked why some properties are getting rebates while others remain ineligible; staff said the city will advocate to the county treasurer for reinstatement where appropriate but that county policy may bar reinstatement after repeated delinquencies. “These property owners did not — they were not the developer,” the city manager said, adding the city will contact the county on behalf of the neighborhood.

After public comment the commission considered and approved an ordinance to levy the assessments, as previously authorized by resolution numbers 2947, 3039 and 2946. The motion carried on a voice vote. City staff said they will follow up with affected homeowners and provide contact information for further questions.