Clarifations

May 22, 2011

I have been reading people’s comments in this forum and would like to chime in with a few of my own.

I have been quite vocal in my support of the road improvement project (may I call it “paving?”).

None of my reasons for this support are new, just as we have already heard the comments against the project. Most of these reasons, on either side of the issue (aesthetics, cost, concern for neighbors) are perfectly valid. You may not like the idea, I do, We’re square on that front. We all have rights to our opinions. It doesn’t mean any of us are ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ We just feel differently about it.

I do object, though, to the pursuit of false narratives on the facts. I would like to address some of these. All of the following information is directly from the two legal opinions posted in the www.panoramicroads.com “Documents” section. In addition, I have read portions of the Oregon Revised Statutes that pertain to this.

Below are several of the mistaken arguments people keep making.

The Board does not have the authority to pave the roads

State law allows districts such as ours to improve its roads, and gives it the authority to assess costs of improvements to the “benefited properties.” It states that this includes “capital construction.” The law specifically includes special road districts. The District’s bylaws also make this clear in Section 8.

“The Commissioners shall employ such engineers, superintendents, mechanics, clerks

or other persons as they may find requisite, necessary or convenient in carrying out any

work of the District at such rate of remuneration as they may deed just, and pay the

expenses actually incurred…”

The polling done by the Board, via ballots to each property owner, is illegal

The polling done by the Board, via ballots to each property owner, is legal. State law states that special districts, including special road districts like ours, are not required to hold elections to impose assessments. The assessment statute requires notices, a public hearing and a waiting period (10 days as I recall) to give property owners the opportunity to comment. These “elections” (two of them) were advisory polls only.

This means that the board has the legal authority to assess costs and undergo the project without a vote. Early in the process, though, the Board committed to following the wishes of the majority of property owners, even though it doesn’t have to. The law is clear that the Board must follow precise procedures to assess money, but it is not required to get our blessings beyond that.

The Board has ignored the opinions of property owners who object

The Board must weigh positive and negative comments and opinions equally. I personally have seen the Board discuss objections to a sometimes-exhaustive degree (I have attended almost every Board meeting for the past two years).

It is clear from feedback in meetings and the results of the polls that the vast majority of property owners are in favor of paving. Both of the opinion polls bear that out: I calculated how many property owners did not reply and added that to the total number of no votes. In each poll, yes votes outnumbered the combined no/absent votes. This makes it clear that the project has overwhelming support.

It is illegal to assess costs evenly according individual lots, as apposed to property values

This is false. I have read both “opinions” from a law firm that specializes in this area, as well as the specific Oregon laws that govern it. Additionally, the Board has received instruction, advise and legal counsel from the Special District Association of Oregon, which have all confirmed that the Board is doing this right.

(Please note that the Board is under no obligation to obtain even one legal opinion. It did so, at significant cost, in an attempt answer specific question asked by property owners. Despite this effort and expense, property owners continue to deny the facts.)

Also, an attorney for Deschutes County said in an email to a District member that the Road District can impose a fixed assessment for road improvements, as long as the project is authorized by and conducted in accordance with the District’s bylaws (see citation above).

I have also listened to seat-of-the-pants interpretations by people on both sides of the issue.

And, as always, personal opinions vary. But the facts are that the Board does have this right. Oregon law says that since our assessment process is on “benefited properties” of the Road District, and that it will impact only property that is benefited, that the process is appropriate and legal.

In other words, although the Board would have been within its legal rights to “push through” this project with only minimal steps to meet requirements of the law, it chose to take a longer, more-thoughtful approach that included two poll sent to all property owners.
 While other avenues of assessment have been discussed or suggested, per-lot assessment is the avenue chosen by the Board. Some may not like it, but it is perfectly legal. I personally feel it is the best path because each property is assessed equally.

Conclusion

As I said earlier, I have been paying a lot of attention as this process has unfolded. And while I am enthusiastically in favor of paving, there have been times I have been at odds with the opinions of the Board. All-in-all, this project will bring benefits to all property owners equally. The Board will never be able to please everyone. It has done a good job, though, of pleasing the majority.

Brian Bubak

Hinkle Butte Road