03/14/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e 1. Annexation is inappropriate or legally impossible; 2. Water service will not prolong the life of non-conforming uses; 3. The property is served by an approved means of sewage disposals; and 4. The owner signs an agreement to annex it at the City's option. Outside the urban service boundary the proposed policy would recognize the existing service to Lane Community College and the airport. Elsewhere, proof of a communicable disease hazard would be required. Current water extension policy requires the existence of a public health hazard, but does not necessarily require the hazard to be a condition propagating a communicable disease. Mr. Chenkin indicated there was a need to control develop- ment beyond the urban services boundary of the city, and that it would be easier, when considering annexation of property, if certain criteria were applied. e Mr. Williams provided some background information for new Council members. He indicated the question concerned what constitutes a health hazard. In the 1990 Plan it is appropriate to extend water beyond the urban services boundary of the city if a health hazard exists. He cited the state law definition of a health hazard and noted that the Lane County policy provides a health hazard exists when it is dangerous to drink the water or if there is not enough water. However, under the City policy only contamination of a water supply with communicable disease bacteria would qualify as a health hazard. He felt the City policy was trying to prove the integrity of the urban services boundary, and to eliminate the leapfrogging of urban sprawl. However, the problem exists, for instance, where there is an existing household and the water is not fit to drink. If the City says no health hazard exists and does not extend water to that property, Mr. Williams said it offended his sense of obligation not to eliminate housing unnecessarily. He noted that he was not saying that the taxpayers should bear the cost of extending water to these outlying areas, but that he did not see any reason to not extend the water supply, when people living in the outlying areas find their water supply presents a health hazard. He does not think that the City should deny city water to those people. Mr. Lieuallen indicated he felt the existing language regarding the health hazard in the City policy was too loose, and felt that there was a necessity for control, with an option to extend water, providing where and when to decide the reasons are appropriate. Mr. Haws indicated he was in favor of the proposed change in the water policy, so that it would allow the City to have control over the water supply. . 23/ 3/14/77 - 3S