|
<br />,...... I
<br /> c,J/ e
<br /> 8/23/71
<br /> ;:
<br /> II I
<br /> have been working with Public Works Department on the problem of sewage disposal. Annex- I!
<br /> ation has not been discussed at this point. In answer to Mr. Mohr, Manager said the d
<br /> 11
<br /> II city had for many years made an effort to negotiate purchase of that, site, but could I'
<br /> I : ~
<br /> I not reach financial agreement with the owner.
<br /> " ;!
<br /> I' I ~
<br /> Mr. Drapela of the Parks Department said Governor McCall's office had contacted him "
<br /> 'I
<br /> and expressed concern over development along the river. !
<br /> [I "
<br /> ii I
<br /> " Ii
<br /> "
<br /> i Planni~g'Director said'he had been in contact with the County regarding a joint meeting
<br /> "
<br /> II to discuss the development and retention of the greenway.
<br /> II
<br /> II
<br /> II Mr. McDonald expressed displeasure wi th corranercial development along the ri ver. Manager
<br /> n
<br /> I! said this was the only remaining portion of privately owned property on either bank of
<br /> II the river between Springfield and the site owned by Valley River. File
<br /> I: ;1
<br /> II "
<br /> , O. Central Lane Metropolitan Study COmrrUssion Recorranendation - A letter and eight recom-
<br /> II
<br /> , 8/11/71 mendations of the Metropolitan Study COmrrUssion were circulated to the Council. The
<br /> 'I -
<br /> il recorranendations have been referred to the Planning Commission for discussion, and recom-
<br /> Ii mendation. The PlanniFlg ,ComrrUssion, recorranendation will give staff an opportuni ty to
<br /> II work wi th L-COG and Bureau of Governmental Research and other agencies involved to
<br /> I'
<br /> " develop better information to make a determination for Council recorranendation.
<br /> 'I
<br /> I' "
<br /> i ~
<br /> :1 I'
<br /> I There was no discussion' at this' time. File
<br /> ii
<br /> I' I
<br /> I,
<br /> " P. EWEB Policy Statement re: Extension of Water Service Outside the City - Mayor Anderson
<br /> 'I 1
<br /> ',' 8/18/71 thanked members of Eugene Water and Electric Board and the County COmrrUssioners and
<br /> I, their staffs for being present at this, meeting ',to discuss newly announced EWEB policy.
<br /> "
<br /> I'
<br /> I, City Council had expressed great concern about the impact of this policy. I'
<br /> II :1
<br /> :1
<br /> I, "
<br /> it John Tiffany, Chairman of the ,Eugene Water and Electric Board, distributed a position :'
<br /> :'
<br /> 1: paper to the City Council and others, and read it in full. He explained the redefini-
<br /> " tion of a long-standing EWEB policy on applications for water service outside Eugene
<br /> I'
<br /> ,I
<br /> il ci ty 1imi ts . He outlined accusations made upon publication of the policy, and responded
<br /> Ii to the implications. He de1iniated historical facts of the inception of the Water Board,
<br /> "
<br /> I' as it was first called. He stated EWEB policy which is: "Upon applicant having met
<br /> :1 all pertinent government regulations, the Board will receive for consideration, appli-
<br /> r:
<br /> Ii cations for water service outside the city limits. The Board's consideration will take ,:
<br /> 'I into account economic feasibility, sound engineering practices, EWEB~S capaci ty to "
<br /> II deliver the quantity of water required, including fire protection, and the determination 'I
<br /> II that service to existing customers will not be impaired. App1i cable government regu- 'I
<br /> Ii I
<br /> II lations may, :include but not be limited to zoning reg.u1ations; state and county building,
<br /> II plumbing and sanitation codes, and waste disposal permits."
<br /> ,:
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> 'I
<br /> II As a service agency and NOT a policing agency, EWEB will continue to defer to those
<br /> II agencies which do have policing powers over land development.
<br /> 'I
<br /> II
<br /> I,
<br /> " Mr. Mohr requested an explanation of the second paragraph of the policy. Mr. Tiffany
<br /> ,I
<br /> " 1;
<br /> I' explained applicable government regulations in the planning, zoning and required permits
<br /> I' I
<br /> I' for building construction conformance with codes and that, when the appropriate govern-
<br />"
<br />I'
<br /> : ~ mental po1i cing agency has taken action approving or disapproving a construction app-
<br /> I'
<br /> I' 1ication, it comes to EWEB for water service. EWEB has no control over a policing agency.
<br />I'
<br />II
<br />II :!
<br />,I
<br />:1 Mayor Anderson ,asked how ,long-range planning would be treated, and whether the Board
<br />II
<br />:! had taken this into consideration. Mr. Tiffany felt that the Board would most certainly
<br />;,
<br />'I operate within an urban seryi ces area, when it had been defined. Mayor Anderson felt
<br />'!
<br />" the limi tation on urban service? should be defined in the policy.
<br />,l
<br />Ii e
<br />"
<br />;1 Mr. Giustina explained that a building permit would be issued if all government regu1a&
<br /> I
<br /> , tions were followed, and that EWEB policy was, that under those circumstances, service "
<br /> ,
<br /> 'I
<br /> would be supplied.
<br /> Mayor Anderson pointed out that long-range planning _was not necessarily a governmental
<br /> regulation per se, but a process. It is almost impossible, for governmental uni ts to
<br /> establish regulations in the planning process that might be applicable to problems
<br /> that deal with urban services and potential possibility of urban service in an area.
<br />II There was further discussion of long-range planning and the implication of EWEB policy
<br />II on such planning.
<br />"
<br />~ ;
<br />Ii Tn answer to Councilman Hershner, Mr. Price of EWEB said Council has never authorized I
<br />II ,
<br /> extension of service, but in the particular instance Mr. Hershner had mentioned, the "
<br /> Board was requesting the city or county to determine whether a building should be built ;, I
<br /> ,
<br /> on the location and whether the zoning was proper. The property was in the city, but :i
<br /> had not been annexed. Ordinarily, the Board works directly with the County Sanitarian
<br /> when the property is outside the City.
<br /> I'
<br /> Councilman Teague was concerned that this was actually a city utility, and yet it was ,
<br /> extending service to the County. He fe1 tit was possible to servi ce as far as the coast, I'
<br /> and wondered where it would stop. Mr. Pri ce explained that the charter allows EWEB "
<br /> to provide service inside and outside the city, and this has been so since 1911. It
<br /> is nothing new. e
<br /> 8/23/71 - 9
<br />...
<br />
|