Ninety six residents attended the March 3 River Road Community Organization meeting March 3 on local access and private roads (84 in person, 12 virtual).
We had Dan Hurley, Director of Lane County Public Works join us, along with his managers Orin Schumacher, Cassidy Mills and Sasha Vartanian. Additionally, our Ward 7 City Councilor, Lyndsie Leech participated to share city street annexation plans. Our County Commissioner, Ryan Ceniga, was unable to make it due to meetings in DC.
Homeowners were upset at being responsible for road maintenance, but many were floored to learn that in the case of injury or damage due to a pothole or other local access road (LAR) road conditions, they could be liable, and that their homeowners insurance would be unlikely to cover it since they don’t own the roads. (Imagine a pothole paralyzing a bicyclist for life and what that would cost homeowners.) I explained that the law also does not address whether a homeowner is liable only for injury arising from the road segment in front of their house, or whether you could share liability with your neighbors for the entire road. CORRECTION: In the RRCO meeting I said that homeowners would be liable – I have to amend this to say that you could be. While the County says that you are responsible for road maintenance, it is apparently a gray area as to whether you could be held liable – it would be determined in court. If you are a lawyer, we are looking for opinions on this and other matters – contact us.
The focus of the meeting was exclusively on local access roads. We did not get an explanation as to why other county roads are designated as “private”, even though they are open to the public and in some cases are depended-upon through streets, and did not have time to discuss the appropriateness of government taking responsiblity for maintaining these.
The presentation was about what you would expect:
- Lane County Public Works (LCPW) made the case for them continuing to not take responsibility for these roads.
- Lyndsie Leech explained that there is a long term plan for all streets to be annexed into and cared for by the city, and she sees benefits to this. However, particularly unimproved, unmaintained LARs without something particularly desirable about them to the city will most likely not be a priority, and the process in any case will take many years – and in the meantime repair costs for these roads will skyrocket as the roads continue to degrade.
- I made a case for the county taking over the roads now, and for the city and the county to to then work with the county on their long term plan to take them over. This would eliminate homeowners’ maintenance burden, liability, and property values hit, and it would give them a fair shot at whatever maintenance funds are available, along with all other roads. The County could then work with the City to get them transferred as quickly as they’d like, assuming the support of residents.
No One Defended LARs
Everyone recognized that LARs are a problem. (And presumably for many decades this has been the case.)
Local Access Roads “Weren’t Created by the County”
LCPW pointed to the State of Oregon as the one that created these. It is true that the State created the definition of a local access road, in ORS 368.001: “a public road that is not a county road, state highway or federal road”. And State law (ORS 368.031) states that the County does not have liability for improving or maintaining LARs.
Nevertheless, our LARs are LARs simply because our County has not accepted them into the County road system – it is due to County inaction. No state law endorses Lane County or any county leaving legitimate paved public roads out of their road systems to save money.
These Roads Are Not County
LCPW took issue with our labeling these roads as “County LARs”. LCPW stressed that these are not County anything. It is true that since County government has failed to take these roads into the County road system, the law therefore deems them LARs, and the County is not responsible or liable for them. But these roads have not been annexed into the city, so they are in the county, the County still has jurisdiction over them (ORS 368.031), and the County has the authority to accept them into the County road system (ORS 368.016).
LARs Were Created With Good Intentions
LCPW, as an example of how LARs came to be and how it was intended as a good thing at the time, explained that Frank Horn in 1937 gave the public access to four long dead end streets off of Horn and sold 1/2 acre parcels along these. However, LCPW did not explain why, over the next 88 years, LCPW and its predecessors did not take these roads into the County road system, even though they did take in at least many dozens of other residential roads that looked and functioned just like them.
It’s Not Just a Problem Here
Lane County Public Works (LCPW) pointed out that there are local access roads elsewhere in the state – that this is not just a River Road and Santa Clara issue.
There are indeed tons of local access roads in our rural state that are legitimately so – gravel roads out in the country that connect a few houses to a County road. Most people would agree that these are not in the public interest to maintain. But beyond these, there are other cities and town that have some LARs, whether there is justification for those or not. Nevertheless, the existence of a problem or injustice elsewhere is no excuse for not fixing a problem or injustice here – particularly when this is one that our County commissioners can remedy.
Note that in Eugene this is almost exclusively a River Road and Santa Clara issue – there are no LARs, for example, in the wealthier areas of the city – and you can bet that if there had been, they would have been taken on decades ago.
State Law Ties Our Hands On What We Can Do
Multiple times LCPW suggested that their hands are tied by state law. For example, they presented this state law as to why they can’t spend money on maintaining them:
Nevertheless, the head of LCPW can recommend the expenditure and the County commissioners can pass a resolution authorizing the expenditure. Presumably any government expenditure requires that it be in the public interest. Certainly maintaining public roads that are just like roads the county DOES spend money on and has therefore deemed in the public interest, qualifies as in the public interest.
There is only one other state law governing local access roads. ORS 368.016, states that if an LAR is in the city, the city governing body has to consent to any action the county plans to take (ours are not in the city), and that the county governing body “May by resolution or order make any public road within its jurisdiction a county road“.
To the extent that LCPW faces constraints on what they can do with LARs, the County Board of Commissioners can immediately remedy this by passing an ordinance incorporating LARs into the County road system. This eliminates the LAR designation, since the definition of an LAR is that it’s not in the County road system.
If We Took These Roads On We Might Have to Encroach on Your Private Property
LCPW suggested that if the county were to take LARs on they would have to be brought up to current standards for new roads, which would include curbs, sidewalks, new storm drain systems, etc. and that it would be very expensive. They further stated that the county might need to widen the right of way, encroaching on your private property. At first I thought that this was not true – that there are internal county policies stating that roads that it accepts into the county road system should meet current standards for new roads, this is not law. State law (ORS 368.016) after all allows the County Board of Commissioners to accept any public road into the road system. However, it looks like the Lane County Board of Commissioners has written into County code that LARs would have to meet current standards for new roads. However, what they have written into the code they can remove from the code, or they can write an exception to it – and we will pressure them to remove this barrier.
Our roads should have been accepted decades ago and look just like roads that were accepted back then. They should not have to meet today’s standards for new roads, they should be admitted into the county road system as-is. In fact, most county-maintained roads in our neighborhood and in Eugene do not meet these new-road standards.
We Don’t Have The Money
The state, and the county and city, are facing a serious shortage of funding for road maintenance and construction – this should not be denied, and I hope you will support state legislation to more properly fund our roads.
Nevertheless, it is completely inappropriate to try to save money by leaving 700+ homeowners completely out in the cold, despite the fact that for decades they have paid and continue to pay the gas taxes and vehicle registration fees that fund maintenance on other residents’ roads.
Imagine for a moment, that this LAR problem never existed or was fixed decades ago – the roads were taken into the County road system. Today LCPW would still be facing a budget shortfall. But it would be caring for all our roads the best they can – without any thought of saving money by leaving certain roads out.
The County can add these roads to its road system and to the maintenance calendar, prioritized by function and condition along with all other roads.
The City is the Logical Provider of Services
LCPW explained that in 1980 the Eugene/Springfield Metro plan designated the cities as the logical providers of urban services (within the urban growth boundary), and LCPW therefore doesn’t feel it’s appropriate for the County to take LARs on. However, it will be many more years more before the city has annexed all roads in our area, our roads can’t wait for that, and the County in the meantime is not suggesting abdicating their responsibility for all the roads that are currently in its road system that the city hasn’t annexed yet – so it will continue caring for the road next door, but not yours.
It Would Be More Work for the City to Take Over the Roads Later If We First Accept Them as County Roads
The city taking over a county road is a two step process: the city annexes it, and then it formally takes over jurisdiction for maintenance. LCPW emphasized that for LARs, it’s just a one step process, annexation, suggesting it would be easier if we wait for the city to take them on directly. Needless to say, one fewer bureaucratic steps for the County and/or City does not seem to be a strong argument for continuing to leave homeowners with the expense of road maintenance, the potential liability for road conditions (which could financially devastate homeowners), and the hit to property values from being on an LAR until the city can take over years from now.
The City’s Annexation of Streets Will Be a Long Prioritized Process
Lyndsie Leech, our Ward 7 City Councilor spoke of work that the City is doing towards annexation of streets. It involves looking at which streets make most sense – developing prioritization criteria such as access to schools or public pathways, connector streets, very improved streets, those of good quality and condition that would be more financially feasible to bring in, etc.
The city would need to raise funds to improve most of these LARs, and that would require that the individual streets be included in roads bonds that will go on the ballot in 2027 and later. However, if most of the houses on these streets continue to not be annexed into the city and therefore don’t pay city taxes, it will be a hard sell for city voters to fund improvements. In addition, every road annexation would go through a period of community engagement – education, public comment, etc.
Realistically, for our LARs that are mostly unimproved, suffering from neglect, and mostly without those other desirable attributes, it will be MANY years before annexation of our streets is completed. (It’s already been 45 years since the Metro plan LCPW mentioned was agreed on.)
Residents Petitioned Both The County and The City to Fix This
Dozens of residents signed petitions before they left: one encouraging the Lane County Board of Commissioners to incorporate these roads into the County road system, and another encouraging the Eugene City Council to work expeditiously to annex roads into the City road system, focusing on LARs. Eight percent signed just the city petition, 21% signed just the county petition, and 71% signed both, indicating that they either support the proposal that the County take them on now and then they support City annexation, or they support whichever route can get it done fastest.
We Can’t Make This Happen Without You!
This problem has existed for 7+ decades. Decade after decade has gone by with LCPW and County officials saying, “We feel bad for you LAR homeowners, but there’s nothing we can do.” Now is the time to demand that our politicians fix this.
We need to bring enough pressure to bear on the Lane County Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council to convince them to act – and we need you to be a part of this. You can:
- Volunteer to help us get the word out, get petitions signed, testify in front of the LC Board of Commissioners and Eugene City Council, etc. Send me a message if you can help with this, and join our mailing list.
- Write letters to the Lane County commissioners and Eugene City Council. For details on how, plus other suggestions for involvement, go to our Get Involved page.
PS: Here Are Some Cost Estimates for Maintaining Roads
I had asked that LCPW provide some very ballpark estimates of how much it would cost to maintain a road. Here’s what Orin Schumacher of LCPW provided:
- If the road is in generally good shape, just looking old and weathered, needs a coat of lipstick, then a slurry seal would be applied that coats it but doesn’t add structure: $2.20 per sq. yd, $33,000 per mile (assuming a 24′ wide road; most here are 20′-23′)
- When the road needs a slight bit of rebuilding, additional structure, a chip seal would be applied, that is round rocks on oil: $2.63 sq. yd, $40,000 per mile
- If the road has alligator and other cracking, slumping, wheel rutting, then a 2″ asphalt overlay would be applied: $11.50, $175,000 per mile. (See my photo on the home page of alligator cracking on Oak Drive.)
Because there are too many variables, he did not provide an estimate for a road with extensive potholes and deep alligator cracking, like Fairway Drive between W. Hilliard and Horn is experiencing, nor for paving unpaved segments, like on Hamilton Avenue. We can assume that these would be MUCH higher.
If you’re considering having maintenance done but you don’t have agreement from all homeowners, be sure to read my “… How Could It Be Financed” segment on this page.
You didn’t mention the potential liability problem for homeowners. The city and the county have some form of governmental immunity. Homeowners don’t. You mentioned your call to State Farm who told you that homeowners do not own the street and therefore can’t insure against someone getting hurt. So the city/county is telling us we own the LAR streets and the insurance company telling us we do not own the street.
Thanks much for reading and commenting, Joel! This news of potential homeowner liability received such a resoundingly negative reaction that I mentioned it towards the top of this article – but I get that the article is long so it can be overlooked. Based on your comment I just bolded it, but I’ll think about reorganizing some. (FWIW, technically the county isn’t telling us we own the roads – they are indeed public – but just that simply because the county has declined to accept them into their road system, they have no responsibility for maintenance and no liability for them. The city is out of the picture, since they haven’t annexed the roads, but they honor the county designation.)