12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

know on what they base their contention. Clearly, the decision can now rest with EWEB unless Council chooses to go to court. Council could opt to make a statement to EWEB as to its position. As indicated in the . materials which have been distributed, the case is quite strong as to need by the citizens of the area for water service. It would appear, said Mr. Long, that need was the primary factor in the Boundary COmaUssion's granting of the extension. Mr. Murray asked when the issue will go to the EWEB Board and in what form. Mr. Long responded that a letter dated November 17 from Willamette Water Company was sent to EWEB enclosing a copy of the Boundary COmrrUssion decision of November 6 and asking that EWEB agree to the extension. It is Mr. Long's understanding that the matter has not been scheduled for ErvEB Board action as yet, however. In answer to a question from Mrs. Beal on particulars of the EWEB-Willamette Water Company contract, Mr. Long explained that contract was drawn up in 1972, providing that EWEB would agree to sell surplus water to Willamette Water Company. In regard to the Shade Oaks subdivision extension, Willamette Water Company has existing lines 3,000 feet or better away from the subdivision and they are therefore requesting surplus water. However, according to Mr. Long, the contract never contemplated extending water to that area, it being so clearly outside the urban service boundary. Mrs. Beal wondered what would happen if the City held firm to its position of being opposed to extension outside the urban service area and sent a memo to that effect to the EWEB Board. Mr. Long replied it would be hard to predict the reaction if that were the case. e Mrs. Shirey questioned what choices there rndght be once the EWEB Board has made its decision. Mr. Long answered it is unclear what those choices ndght be; one option rndght be to proceed before the LCDC. Issues could be raised such as whether the Boundary COmrnUssion decision is quasi-judicial. A deterrndnation that it was would be helpful in this particular case but a further question arises as to whether a decision of that nature would be helpful to local government overall. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Long to elaborate on his remarks that the findings of the Boundary COmrrUssion may not be strong. Mr. Long referred to the Boundary COnmUssion's Final Order which stated that on the basis of a study considering econorndc, demographic, and sociological trends and physical development of the land, and on the basis of the hearing, the Commission found that: "Affected property owners in Shade Oaks subdivision desired the proposed extension; Objections were voiced regarding the extension of water service into the area since the line would cross undeveloped properties; Nineteen of 22 lots are currently developed in the subdivision; Several of the households lack water from existing sources; Repeated efforts to find an adequate supply have failed." In Mr. Long's opinion, criteria the Commission is required to follow would include economic, demographic and sociological trends and projections pertinent to the proposal, and past and prospective development of land that would directly or indirectly be affected by the proposed change. The law also requires reasons. It would logically follow that reasons should follow criteria and, in Mr. Long's mind, there is a question of whether the e reasons given relate to criteria on which the decision is to be made. Mrs. Beal wondered about ~ny other legal recourse should the time lapse for filing a writ of review. Mr. Long could not give any assurance that there would be other recourses. He added, too, that on the writ of review proceeding &3/3 12/8/75 - 7