Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1-A-3 <br /> <br />thru <br />1-8-1 <br /> <br />C. Proposed reV1Slons to City's water policy <br />Recommended by Planning Department <br /> <br />Manager said under the new charter effective April 1, the responsibility <br />of water extension services will become that of the Eugene City Council. <br />Recent litigation under the present water policy demonstrated certain <br />weaknesses that result in many extensions leading to urban sprawl outside <br />urban service boundaries. One of the most important aspects of the <br />revised policy was a redefinition of what is a health problem with regard <br />to action preventing the spread of a communicable disease. <br /> <br />Gary Chenkin, Planning Department, said no further communication had <br />been received by the Planning Department regarding the revised water <br />pOlicy. He reviewed the present water policy, which was adopted ori- <br />ginally in February of 1972, and redefined in March of 1975. That policy <br />provided for extensions if the property was within the urban service area <br />in a location that should be in the City but could not be legally annexed <br />and the owner signed an agreement to annex when it became legally impos- <br />sible; or if there was an existing health hazard to existing property <br />occupants which could only be corrected by securing City water. He said <br />the proposed revision for the Council is not so much a departure from <br />present policy as it is a more detailed expression of that policy. For <br />example, with Boundary Commission approval, service would still be avail- <br />able to properties outside the city but within the urban service boundary <br />provided: 1) annexation is inappropriate or legally impossible; 2) water <br />service will not prolong the life of non-conforming uses; 3) the property <br />is served by an approved means of sewage disposal; and 4) the owner signs. <br />an agreement to annex at the City's option. He said that outside the <br />urban service boundary the proposed policy recognized existing service to <br />Lane Community College and the Airport. Elsewhere, proof of a communicable <br />disease would be required. Current policy requires the existence of a <br />public health hazard, but does not necessarily require the presence of a <br />communicable disease. In areas once part of the water districts served by <br />EWEB but subsequently dissolved, special provisions would be included for <br />forwarding requests for extension to the Boundary Commission with informa- <br />tion regarding the City's policy. Under the new policy, the criteria for <br />providing water within the urban service boundary area remains essentially <br />the same, although it somewhat tightens up the criteria, providing more <br />protection to the city. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay asked why under Section 2.2.4, item No. 10 the requirement <br />that the contract be recorded at the expense of the City and why the <br />charge was not made to the person. Mr. Chenkin replied that the agreement <br />had been runni ng three to four pages long and was expensive to record. He <br />said it had been an administrative hassle and administrative cost to get <br />the papers recorded. There had been a development of a one-page notice of <br />agreement, which is recorded by the City saying that the longer agreement <br />was on record. <br /> <br />3/28/7 7--2 <br /> <br />.t5~ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />.. <br />,-" <br /> <br />. <br />