Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Bradley then asked if it was possible to change that section so that <br />vacant land did not receive the water and water was supplied only to <br />structures. Mr. Chenkin replied if the purpose was not to allow water to <br />any vacant land under any circumstances, then the word "ordinarily" <br />could be deleted. Mr. Bradley then asked how the City would be affected <br />if it did not provide water to vacant lands. Mr. Chenkin replied that the <br />result would be a series of subdivisions with large lots with water-well <br />supplies that would ultimately fall heir to the City as annexation pro- <br />gressed. With the portions of property having no prior approval of <br />conforming to the City policies, he felt it would be contrary the compact <br />urban growth plan of the City. He also noted another disadvantage would <br />be that it might bring pressure for expansion of a special services <br />district where the City would not have authority or control over these <br />districts. <br /> <br />Mr. Bradley then asked how enforceable the agreement for consent to <br />annexation was. Mr. Long replied that the weight of authority is that <br />they are enforceable and that the agreements were going to be made to <br />run with the land ownership. Mr. Bradley asked under Section 2.2 re- <br />garding the recommendation by the City to the Boundary Commission for <br />water extension, why the property owner does not request for himself <br />rather than the City requesting from the Boundary Commission. Mr. Chenkin <br />replied that under state statutes the City through EWEB has to be the <br />provider. <br /> <br />Mr. Bradley questioned under 3.3.1 communicable disease hazard, <br />how that would be decided and who would decide. Mr. Chenkin said the <br />definition of a communicable disease under the proposed policy would <br />narrow the problem. He said it would depend on individual circumstances, <br />for instance a Lane County Health Officer or through some other recognized <br />authority. Mr. Lieuallen questioned if the City Council were in disagree- ~ <br />ment with the definition of a health hazard, if it could find itself in <br />court. Mr. Long replied that was one of the reasons why the language in <br />the present revised policy is as it is. The, concern was that the City did <br />not want to get into a situation where someone else's judgement would be <br />binding. As the language now stands, it provides protection to the City <br />by making it a determination of the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Bradley asked how real the concerns were for proliferation of special <br />service districts and large lot subdivisions outside of the urban service <br />area boundary. Mr. Chenkin replied that proliferation of special dis- <br />tricts was more of a problem in the past than it was right now, but that <br />it is still a problem as there are five special water districts existing. <br />In regard to the large lot subdivisions, he noted that had occurred, <br />outside the area, and there was no reason to believe that it would not <br />also occur within the urban services boundary area, if the opportunity <br />were there. Mr. Martin questioned if it were still possible for a private <br />water company to be created by land owners unilaterally, if the land <br />owners had a water supply. Mr. Long replied that it was possible. Mr. <br />Martin then noted that another community in Oregon had received a federal <br />grant which made available to it a water supply system outside the city <br />boundary and thus the City lost all control over service to that area. It <br />reduced the City's authority to deal with the urban area outside the <br />boundary. <br /> <br />Resolution No. 2643--Authorizing revisions in the City's water policy <br />was read by number and title. <br /> <br />3/28/77--4 <br /> <br />;;t5lf <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br />