During Tuesday’s BOC meeting, Kevin Stufflebean addresses Phil Thompson who frequently handles the camera for the local public access channel. Stufflebean is of the impression that Thompson was filming work being done out at the Wallace Road local improvement district. For clarification in the following exchange, Thompson had a small digital still camera with him and says he took two photos.
I want to thank Phil Thompson because Phil, I understand you were out on Wallace Road yesterday taking pictures…. Oh, I thought you were recording… I am hoping you guys are doing a show on the local improvement district out there because that’s a very successful one for the County…. I am assuming you guys are doing a show about Wallace Avenue and LID… I want to thank you because I think that’s a good thing for the county and that’s the first local improvement district that’s actually going through so people will be able to see how the process works and what’s going on so I thank you…
All the while Stufflebean is encouraging Thompson to do a show on the Wallace Road improvements it turns out he is planning on doing one himself, complete with a Chyron or subtitle. In what appears to be little more than a campaign video, Stufflebean appears shortly after the BOC meeting, on camera with one of the lucky recipients of Bancroft Bond, what works out to be ten year financing, for his personal driveway. The driveway improvements are an optional side deal allowed under ORS 371.640. Allowed, but by no means mandatory, as far as I can tell.
The local improvement districts can be a great way to improve some roads and I am all for them. In effect, the County is behaving as the lender to the abutting property owners to improve the road and assessing the costs of the materials to the members of the LID with the County picking up the labor cost. Those home owners that request driveway work off the right of way can also finance the work though the LID assessment but must incur not only the materials cost but also the labor costs.
During the video pictured above Kevin addresses concerns raised at the BOC meeting earlier that day regarding tying up an already small county road crew to do work on private property. Yesterday, before seeing either the BOC meeting or the LID video, I sent the following email to all three commissioners but have yet to receive a reply.
Where can I obtain a copy of Resolution 09-09-136L pertaining to the formation of the Wallace/Shell/Caraway LID? Where do I find a copy of the agreements with the abutting land owners? Several people have asked me questions relating to improvements off the right of way and on private property, for example driveways. My understanding is the homeowners are responsible for all material and labor costs for the off right of way work. Is this true? How is reimbursement made to the county, specifically for the driveways? Is it reimbursed immediately or assessed as an increase to property taxes and paid out over time?
Also, I have been advised the road crews have been working overtime, grading on weekends, most recently in the Fairview area. Is this true? Given the small crew, is the taxpayer absorbing the cost of overtime while crews are paving private drives during regular work hours if road crew are then left doing regular road maintenance on weekends?
Thank you,
Mary
In the video Kevin claims to have eighteen road employees and with only eight working on Wallace Road that leaves ten to work on the roads.
…we have eight of our eighteen employees out here, that means we still have ten of our employees throughout the county doing road maintenance. That was an issue that was brought up at our board meeting, in fact, this morning
Here is the problem. The road department doesn’t have eighteen employees, only sixteen. Four are management and one is a mechanic. Three are on light duty, meaning physical problems restrict the type of work they can do, and one is off until the first of the year with a shoulder injury. Cindy Moody, who manages the sign shop, was seen flagging for the work on Wallace Road. Roughly, it would seem the eight able bodied workers paving Wallace Road left office staff, the roadmaster, John Rowe, and some physically impaired road employees ‘throughout’ the county.
These are the kind of factual errors that both confuse the electorate and raise the level of mistrust of the commissioner to such a high level as to initiate a recall. Whether Commissioner Stufflebean is dishonest or just incapable of keeping his facts straight hardly matters. In the end, the taxpayer is being manipulated and confused and therefore not able to make qualified and informed decisions with public money, resources and maintain infrastructure and provide for public safety.
At the time the LID was formed, it was cheaper to have the county do it, rather than a private contractor, for the residents anyway.
The Document we signed as homeowners says;
“I/We am/are the owner(s) of the above-described property abutting proposed improvement and consent to the proposed improvement and an assessment of a share of the cost of the improvement” This was on Page 3 of the “Road improvement and assessment petition.” Which was notarized.
FYI
Defining who the signing parties are would be very helpful, thank you. Also, Kevin indicated the county road crew cost was actually higher than a private contractor bid… am wondering why the LID members would elect to use the county rather than a private contractor if that is the case.
I don’t believe that 371.635 pertains to LIDs. Often roads are improved without consent of land owners and they get a special tax assessment. This is members of a neighborhood that will still have to effect repairs on this road in the future out of pocket. By vote we came together; no court was involved, to the best of my knowledge. I am in possession of all paperwork filed in conjunction with this LID. We even had to come up with the calculations on how to divide the expense between benefiting land owners, and sign to that effect. Which we all had to agree with by vote. If I remember tomorrow, Ill take a look and see who the agreement is between.
The concern is who signed the other side of the agreement? The Commission? Read ORS 371.640 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/371.640
“Additional driveways or other road connections, including retaining walls, may be constructed simultaneously with the improvements, when a written request is filed with the county court prior to the acceptance of bids by the affected abutting landowners. ”
Then read the 371.635 https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/371.635
“the county court may, by order describing the land to be assessed, direct the improvement to be made by contract, or by force account.”
Also, all agreements were signed prior to the beginning of the project. Documents were notarized, and if a resident doesn’t pay each year then their property is leaned on. There were 4 public meetings that detailed all the nitty gritty. We even had to sign that we agreed to the price. Maybe reporters should ask the residents.
Hmmm…. novel idea, asking the people involved.
Being a resident that has watched this project from the beginning, there have only been 8 workers on site on rare occasions. Maybe twice. Usually there are only 2-4 workers at any one time with a single truck driver. Obviously the writer of this article doesn’t have all the facts either.
Intimidation seems to permeate several of the county departments…
As to the email, no answer yet, but I have learned two things. Repayment for the driveways will be over the course of ten years, IF, and only IF, any agreement between the property owner and the county exists and has been approved by the board… otherwise the assessor has nothing legal to assess. If this wasn’t done properly, Kevin just paved a bunch of driveways with public money and has no way to collect reimbursement.
Stufflebean is trying to pretty things up to make Public think they are doing a great job with the people they have left. Lawrence and Austin both are doing the work a Union person should be doing. But it seems that the Teamsters have dropped the ball and are not putting a stop to it. Although the people left have to file a grievance or file a complaint, and I believe they are worried about losing their jobs.In the past we never did Asphalt work off county right of way. I don’t know the law on this but something is wrong with this picture, in my opinion. I hope the commissioners answer your email. I am curious as to what the response will be.