Council continues East Jenny Avenue LID hearing after debate over cost method

City staff presented a detailed staff report on Ordinance 23-83 and the proposed Local Improvement District (LID) No. 324 to construct East Jenny Avenue, then heard public testimony and extensive council debate before continuing the hearing to the council’s next meeting.

Assistant City staff Mark Morgan described the corridor, project scope and background: the city and property owners previously rezoned parcels and some properties are under active development while others are vacant or constrained by wetlands. Morgan said the preliminary engineering estimate for the corridor is about $1.2 million (including a 20% contingency) and that electrical relocations — estimated at roughly $450,000 for the corridor — are not included in that LID estimate. He explained the city’s typical cost-allocation method for LIDs uses linear frontage to apportion special benefits and referenced ORS and the Hermiston charter procedures for forming an LID.

At the public testimony portion, Tara Bendixson, owner of 992 E. Jenny Ave., said the linear-foot method produced an inequitable assessment for her one-acre parcel and asked the council to consider allocating costs by property area instead. She cited Oregon statute ORS 223.389 and said the linear-foot approach would require her to pay approximately $122,000 for improvements while an area-based allocation would reduce her estimated obligation to about $27,800. “This LID formation is primarily triggered by the development of The Hub, a 276-unit apartment complex adjacent to our property,” she said, and urged the council to reconsider the front-foot methodology.

Councilors debated precedent, equity and legal flexibility. Several members said the city’s long-standing practice has been frontage-based apportionment but agreed to explore alternatives in light of the public testimony. City Attorney Tovey advised that the council can decide the methodology but that a change could create a precedent for future LIDs. The council first voted on a motion to “suspend” the LID formation for not less than six months, which failed. A follow-on motion to continue the hearing to the next council session so staff could analyze alternative allocation methods passed 6–2 by roll call.

Staff told councilors the next practical deadline is to have plans ready to advertise for bids in the fall and that waiting multiple years would raise costs due to inflation; staff estimated roughly a month or two was available before the advertising window. By continuing the hearing rather than terminating or approving the ordinance, the council left open design and cost allocation decisions for the next meeting.