Florence Planning Commission
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon 97439

RE: Resolution 01-05-08-22
 Annexation of 1.1 acres located east of Highway 101 and north of Munsel Lake Road
 Applicant: Mike and Miriam Cocciolo

Dear Commissioners:

The primary purpose of the Planning Commission is to do the “ditch digging” work of the City
Council.  You are expected to carefully and completely review all the data, all the testimony, all the often mundane information necessary, in order to provide recommendations to the City Council that will reflect a thorough, thoughtful review of the issues presented.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to prove to you that their proposal is (1) in the best interest of the citizens of Florence and (2) complies with all applicable City and State laws, codes and regulations.  You should not abrogate your responsibilities and “pass the buck” to the City Council because the applicant has not presented sufficient information for you to make informed decisions.  If you have doubts about the merits and/or legality of a proposal, you should deny it until such time as the applicant has provided you with sufficient information to change your mind.  You should not expect City staff to dig up all the necessary information - that is the applicant’s job.

Cost to Existing Residents of Florence  - The attached Cost Analysis can be viewed in two ways: It either represents a “cost” to the existing taxpayers, or a “subsidy” to the developer.  Either way, these costs come out of our pockets, over and above any possible SDCs or taxes to be paid by the annexation petitioners/developers, a total of $19,284,298 for all four  annexations.  The cost of this annexation alone is $5,425,458.  Each Commissioner should carefully review the attached Cost Analysis before any decisions are made.  Each Commissioner needs to be aware of just how much their decisions may cost - or save - the City taxpayers.

Not mentioned in the Staff Report is the possible cost to the City if this annexation requires the City to assume responsibility for maintenance and upgrading of Munsel Lake Road.

Not mentioned in the Staff Report is the cost to the City of withdrawing this parcel from Heceta Water District and the Siuslaw Rural Fire Protection District.  The City must pay for a portion of the District’s outstanding debt service at the time of annexation.

The proposed zoning to Single Family Residential, and annexation must meet certain criteria:

Statewide Land Use Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services.   ... to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.

This standard requires the city to determine the need for adequate water supply facilities based on development plans and population projections, and to assure that the necessary facilities and services are available in advance of or concurrent with development.  (See Land Use Board of Appeals case 22 Or LUBA 369 (1991), Burghardt v. City of Molalla).  The showing of the availability of adequate services must be definitive, not merely feasible.  (See Land Use Board of Appeals case 22 Or LUBA 742 (1992), Southwood Homeowners Assoc. v. City of Philomouth).

Agreement with Heceta Water District

At the time of annexation, unless there is an agreement in place between the District and the City, by state statute (ORS 222.540), the City becomes responsible for providing water to the annexed territory.  The time frame for assumption of this responsibility, in this case, would be July 1, 2001 (ORS 225.465).  The City’s plan will not provide sufficient water by that date to service this area.

As of the date of this hearing, the City does not have an agreement with Heceta Water District to provide water to these parcels.   No agreement has  been reviewed by the Water District Board or the City Council or the City’s attorneys.  The staff’s assumption that “the area ... will continue to be served by Heceta, even after annexation, until such time as both Heceta’s and the City’s infrastructure is reconfigured to revise services areas, and there is an accompanying IGA setting policy for future provision of water.”  is misleading.  State statutes provide that unless there is an agreement in place at the time of annexation, the City will assume responsibility for provision of water to these parcels. The staff then takes the misleading statement even further by stating, “Under this arrangement, the Morales annexation and the Sand Ranch area annexation would continue to be served by Heceta Water District until other agreements are adopted.”  This is, again, misleading.  There is no agreement, there is no verbal agreement.  All there is in the record are two letters from Heceta Water District objecting to these annexations and setting out issues they wish to discuss - no agreement, no promises that these issues, and possibly others, will be resolved anytime in the near future.  All that is in the record are “some points of discussion for preparation of an agreement”.

There is no indication when such an agreement will be finalized, or what the terms of that agreement might be.  For example, it is entirely possible the Water District may wish to place additional water supply restrictions on these parcels because of the District’s reduced ability to provide water to customers inside their district boundaries.  One conversation  between staff members does not equate to an agreement, by any stretch of the imagination.  The City Council’s recent termination of the agreement to jointly build a water treatment plant is a perfect example of how quickly circumstances can change, with major implications on the future of the City.

The Planning Commission must make decisions based on the facts before them. Decisions cannot be made based on “future possible maybes”.

In addition, the total impact on water supply for the three annexations which are “assumed” to be serviced by Heceta Water District is:
 

DAILY WATER NEEDS
	Sand Dune	Morales	Cocciolo	Total
# New Residents	271	501	510	1,282
Average daily use (188 gal.) 1	x 188	x 188	x 188	x 188
Daily water needs per person (gallons)	50,948	94,188	95,880	241,016
Add 10% “unmetered” water loss 1				+ 24,101
Total Average Daily Water Needs				265,117
Peak Daily Flow Factor 1				x 1.75
Total Peak daily Water Needs (gallons per day)				463,954
1 - Calculation factors from Florence Water Facilities Plan

The Water District does not currently have sufficient capacity to produce an extra 463,954 gallons of water per day.  In fact, once the new filtration plant is on line, they will only be able to produce 1 mgd per day.  The Water District currently needs around 400,000 gallons per day to serve customers within its boundaries, with peak demands of 700,000 to 800,000 gallons per day.   Existing residents in the City of Florence historically have needed peak supplies from the Water District of up to 500,000 gallons per day.  Once the Water District is limited to 1 million gallons per day in 2002, there will be even less water available to the City than in preceding years.

One solution to this dilemma would be for the Water District to request an exception to the County’s restriction on their easement.  There have been indications from County Commissioners that the County would not be willing to do this.  There are also indications that certain private parties might engage the District, County and/or City in costly lawsuits should this request be made to the County.  Even if the County were to grant the request, and the threatened lawsuits were not forthcoming, the District would have to incur additional expense in reconfiguring the filtration plant and installing additional equipment needed to process more than one million gallons per day.  Regardless of what might happen, resolution of this problem is most likely years off in the future.  It is most certainly premature, and inappropriate for the City to be inferring through their approval of the annexation request there will be sufficient water available to the owners when they develop their properties.

The City’s Water Facilities Plan is merely feasible, not definitive.  Since the adoption of the Plan, the circumstances surrounding water supply have changed dramatically, and several alternative plans for location and number of wells have been put forth by the Florence Public Works Department.  No definitive plan has been adopted by the City.  No definitive resolution to the Clear Lake water supply problem has been found.   The City cannot ensure that there is (or will be) sufficient water for all the annexations that are being proposed.

Statewide Land Use Goal 14 - Urbanization.  Conversion of urbanizable land to urban uses shall be based on consideration of:

     1.   Orderly, economic provision for public facilities and services

A. Notice.   The City has not provided sufficient notice to affected agencies.

Although contrary to City policy, some agencies which were not notified include: Qwest Telephone, Siuslaw School District, Falcon Cable, Oregon Fish and Wildlife, Soil and Water Conservation Service, US Corps of Engineers, Oregon Division of State Lands, and US Environmental Protection Agency (Sole Source Aquifer Designation).

It is difficult for the Planning Commission to make an informed decision when all affected public utilities have not had adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed annexation.  The hearing record should be held open until all affected agencies have received notice and have had adequate time to respond.

B. Water.  The City does not have sufficient water capacity to serve the proposed
annexation.

“The issue to be addressed at the time of annexation is whether these utility services have capacity to serve the proposed annexation.” (City Staff Report)

While it would be more convenient to view this proposed annexation in isolation, the Commission must view this in the full context of the other three requests for annexation.  The combined effect of the addition of 211 acres to the City cannot be ignored.

City has determined that it is in the city’s best interest to develop groundwater sources in order to meet future water needs.  The City’s Water Facilities Plan states that IF the existing plant facilities are “optimized”, (at a cost of at least $371,000) they could reliably produce 2.5 mgd.  The City has not completed these “optimization” procedures, and there is no evidence that the City wells can reliably produce 2.5 mgd today.

Even if the Commission could rely on the reported “average” production indicated in the Staff
Report of 2.2 mgd by existing City wells, it must be remembered:

      1.  At least 10% of that production is lost to “unmetered” use;
      2.  A certain percentage must be used to backwash the filters,
      3.  Well production does not equate to usable water production,
      4.  Production levels from dunal wells are notoriously unreliable, and
      5.   Dunal wells ultimately produce less water over time, and have a relatively short
          lifespan.

The City’s Water Facilities Plan prepared by Brown and Caldwell states: “The facility produces an average of 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) with a peak capacity of 1.8 mgd.”

The Staff Report indicates that our current population of 6,865 could be expected to create a demand for 1.29 mgd, and gives the impression that the City can produce 2.2 mgd, and purchase 1 mgd from Heceta.  This narrative might lead one to conclude that the City has the ability to provide 3.2 mgd to its residents.   These figures and calculations are misleading, overly simplistic, and ignore many factors.   Just in basic terms, if the current City population needs 1.29 mgd, and the wells can produces 2.2 mgd, then why would the City need to purchase .5 mgd from Heceta Water District?

A more realistic review of the City’s water capacity would include the following.  During summer months, the City regularly purchases in excess of .5 mgd from Heceta.  If the City’s peak capacity is 1.8 mgd, and the maximum which can be purchased from Heceta is 1.0 mgd, then the maximum peak capacity is 2.8 mgd.  Again, that figure must be adjusted to allow for “unmetered” use (10%). (Note, the Water Facilities Plan (WFP) states that the City’s actual “unmetered” water use was 15.1% in the past.  Assumptions used in the Water Facilities Plan (WFP) were 10%. It is entirely possible that the 10% figure is overly optimistic considering the age and condition of Florence’s water mains, and a higher number should be used when calculating water needs.) It appears that an optimistic level of usable water production available to the City right now is about 2.5 mgd.  A quick calculation (see attached Water Needs Analysis) can show the inadequacy of the existing system if these annexations are approved:
 

Estimated existing City water production	2.50 mgd
Estimated need after annexations	-   2.96 mgd
Water capacity shortfall	(  .46 mgd)

Note, the 2.96 mgd figure does not include the 10% allowance for “unmetered” loss, which would result in a total need after annexations of 3.26 mgd, and a total shortfall of .76 mgd.
The WFP  also states that in order to build a treatment capacity of 3.0 mgd, the City would have to expand the plant and add three more wells, at a cost to taxpayers of at least $1,065,000.  Again, it should be noted that “treatment capacity” does not equate to usable water produced.  A “3.0 mgd plant” cannot produce 3.0 mgd of usable water to its customers.  A certain amount of the water will be lost to “unmetered” uses, and a certain amount must be retained in the system for back flushing, storage, etc.  A 3.0 mgd treatment capacity plant will not provide enough water for the proposed annexations.

The next step up in production is detailed in the WFP.   In order for the City to provide 4.7 mgd from wells, it would need to have at least 14 wells and spend over $11 million.  There is no evidence that the City has even seriously contemplated, much less approved, the expenditure of over $11 million for a 4.7 mgd facility.

The Staff Report states that the projected completion date for the new wells and plant expansion is “early 2002".  Unfortunately, time and funding often interfere with projected completion dates, and the 2001 completion date is speculative, at best.   The report does not state what the expected capacity of the “new wells and filters” will be in 2002.

The City does not currently have an agreement for withdrawal from Heceta Water District, which therefore requires that the annexed area be withdrawn from Heceta Water District upon annexation, and water be provided by the City.  The report does not comment on what this would cost, or entail, or if it is even possible given the structure and water pressure requirements of the City’s water distribution system.

C.   Sewer Facilities - The Staff Report has not adequately considered the future implications of the cost to existing residents.

While the sewer system reportedly currently has the capacity to serve 12,500, it should be kept in mind that the addition of the four annexations effectively represent an increase in the City population of over 20%.  Looked at another way, this means that right now, the population inside city limits represents about 55% of the capacity of the sewage treatment plant.  The annexations will increase that to 75% - leaving us with only 25% of the capacity of our new plant left available for future growth.  Once we use up that 25%, we will have to pay for another expensive upgrade to the sewage treatment plant.

D.   Stormwater Management Facilities - The Staff Report has not addressed the potential threat to the North Florence Dunal Aquifer, a federally protected aquifer.

The Staff Report has not addressed the added potential of groundwater contamination of not only the existing City well fields, but the North Florence Dunal Aquifer.  The Stormwater Management Plan does deals only with surface water, not groundwater.  Some possible contaminants which would enter the groundwater flow (directly upstream from the City well fields): Accidental or intentional spills of pesticides, herbicides, motor oil, gasoline, pet wastes, paint and VOCs, etc.  The current laws do not require testing of drinking water for all possible (and known) contaminants from urban development.  The cost of “clean up” of the City’s well field in the case of contamination has not been addressed.

In addition, the current Stormwater Management Plan specifically excludes the parcels north of Munsel Lake Road from consideration in the overall plan.  This parcel has considerable wetlands issues associated with it, as illustrated in the attached testimony of the Siuslaw Rod & Gun Club regarding a neighboring property which is also being proposed for annexation, the Morales property.

E.   Streets and Sidewalks - The Staff Report clearly states, “Access from this parcel will be via a newly constructed City street, Spruce Street.”  Although contained in the unadopted Comprehensive Plan, it is common knowledge that the City does not intend to extend Spruce Street north to Munsel Lake Road anytime in the foreseeable future.  There are no plans for sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. on the street that is planned to connect between Spruce Street and Munsel Lake Road, so it will not be a “full service” street.  The Staff Report fails to explain the cost to existing City residents if extension of Spruce Street is required to service development on this parcel.

F.   Fire Protection - See attached comments re: cost to existing taxpayers.

G.   Power and Communications - See attached comments re: cost to existing taxpayers.

H.   Police Protection - See attached comments re: cost to existing taxpayers.

This Staff Report on the adjacent Morales annexation clearly indicated that the City cannot provide adequate police protection at this time, other than “a very limited level of preventive law enforcement” and “emergency services.”

2.   Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to insure choices in the market place.

While the Staff reports that there are “several ways to address this criterion”, no conclusion or
finding that this annexation meets this criteria  is offered.  The report also fails to discuss the
dramatic devaluation of an existing buildable lot when the “pool” of  buildable lots inside the city limits is increased (from 124 lots currently) by adding more (a total of 560 in the three annexations proposed) potential lots.

The Staff Report states that an examination of the City map illustrates the need for additional land for single family residential development.  Staff appears to be confused between a need for choices of housing types for city residents and opportunities for developers, not necessarily the same thing.  What staff is trying to illustrate is their perceived need for more developable land - land which can be purchased in large chunks, subdivided and sold off at a tidy profit.  There is no stated need in the Comprehensive Plan (either the 1988 or proposed new plan) for development opportunities.  The need, if any, which must be addressed is for housing choices, not development opportunities.  In that respect, Florence has sufficient residential land to provide for housing through development (124 empty lots) and development or re-development of existing underutilized residential parcels.   In fact, the staff developed the data for, and this Planning Commission approved, the statement in the new Comp Plan:  “... a good supply of vacant lots and unbuilt phases of approved residential subdivisions
exist within the city.” (5/5/2000 Draft, page 3)

3.   LCDC goals or the acknowledged comprehensive plan.

This rezoning does not comply with LCDC goals or the applicable 1988 Comprehensive Plan.  The Staff Report clearly states: “The Urban Service Area section of the Plan was written to control, as much as possible, development in the Urban Service Area outside the City limits in a way which allowed redevelopment to city standards upon annexation, and which prevented density of development requiring extension of sewer service to areas of failing septic systems.”  Regardless of whether the staff believe the 1988 Plan to be outdated, it is the ruling authority in this instance, and  the annexation request must comply with the existing standards as set out in the 1988 Comp Plan.  If the petitioner wishes their application to be required to conform with the more “updated” version of the Comprehensive Plan, they must wait until it is formally adopted and acknowledged, and then re-apply.

The Staff Report states that” Objective 4 directs the City to encourage development to occur within the city limits with controlled outward growth.”  Once again, the staff confuses the need for housing with the need for development opportunities.  Adding over 211 acres of virtually vacant residential land to the existing residential base is not encouraging development within the city limits.

The Staff Report states that “Policy 5 states that medium to high density development shall be
allowed only if adequate water and sewer capacity is available and the proposed development meets all other criteria.”  Sufficient water capacity is not available at this time, and there is no evidence showing when it will be available.

Florence does not have sufficient water supplies

The City Council work session of February 26, 2001 was most informative.  It is unfortunate that many of the Planning Commission members were unable to attend.  The report from the City’s engineers clearly pointed out that the City does not have sufficient water supplies, and will not have sufficient water supplies for existing residents until at least Summer 2008, at the earliest.

The City’s recently revised plans, at least at this point, indicate a desire to produce 2 mgd by Summer 2001.  (Engineer’s Handout).  Information attached clearly shows that this annexation, in combination with the other three proposed annexations, will require the City to be able to meet a demand of 2.96 mgd right now.  It should be noted that the 2.96 mgd does not include any provision for any future development of properties inside city limits.

By Summer 2002, the City hopes to produce 3 mgd.  (Engineer’s Handout)  The estimated need for existing residents plus the three annexations is 2.96 mgd. That leaves 40,000 gallons per day for future growth inside city limits.   IF there are no delays, by  summer 2002, the City’s plans will provide only about 40,000 gallons per day for any development of properties inside city limits if these properties are annexed.  That equates to about 60 new homes or apartments inside existing city limits.   The plans clearly indicate that even the 3 mgd to be produced in 2002 will be insufficient for existing population (at 3.5% growth rate) by the year 2006.  (Engineer’s Handout - Projected Water Demand, CFF Projected Water Demand updated to reflect current population)

The City’s plan indicates that the $11.4 million well field/plant expansion (City’s Water Facilities Plan) will be needed in the year 2008.   The attached chart (CFF Projected Water Demand) clearly shows that the addition of the four annexations could easily move up the deadline for the $11.4 million water supply expansion to the year 2002.

The City’s plan has not fully considered these annexations, or the impact they will have on the City’s financial ability to provide water to existing residents in the very near future.  The City’s plan expects growth to occur at a rate of 3.5%, over a period of 20 years.  These four annexations will  increase the city’s population equivalent to a 25% growth rate.  The addition of these four annexations will accelerate the useful life of our existing water supply and sewer collection systems to the point that we will have to be upgrading at least five years earlier than planned.

Sewer Capacity

On January 15, 2001, Public Works Director Ken Lanfear informed the City Council that “the
existing collection system has a residual capacity to serve at least 220 additional dwelling units.”   The Hwy 101 area annexation (Sand Dune area) can develop to a total of 224 houses.  The Morales parcel can develop to a total of 218 houses.  The Keubler parcel can develop to a total of 224 houses.  The Cocciolo parcel can develop to 222 houses.  Of course, if either one or all of these parcels are annexed, then there will be one of two results: either the City will have to pay for expansion of the sewer collection system for any new residences in this area, or  development inside existing city limits will have to be placed on a moratorium until funding for a new sewer collection system can be found.

City staff, at the January 15 City Council meeting, stated that funding would “probably come out of a combination of systems development charges and the local sewer assessment district.  As properties are developed, they will be charged fees, which will reimburse the City for the cost.”

First, the systems development fees do not reflect the full cost to the City for expansion of the
existing sewer system.  Second, these property owners have not been informed how much this might cost them.  Third, the City taxpayers have not been informed how much this forced expansion of the sewer system will cost them.

Conclusion

The City has neither  adequate water supply, adequate sewer collection facilities, nor adequate plans or funding in place to provide for them.  For these reasons, these annexations should be denied at this time.

Other Pertinent Information

Although submitted as testimony in another annexation, the comments of Florentine Estates
Homeowners Association apply to this annexation, as well.  I have therefore attached their statement to this letter.

For these reasons, this annexation request should be denied.

Zane Ziemer
President

Attachments:
     A.   Projected Water Demand
     B.   ORS 222.540
     C.   ORS 222.465
     D.   January 15, 2001 City Council Meeting Minutes (page 8)
     E.   Documents provided by City Engineers at 2/26/01 Work Session
     F.   2/16/01 Response of Florentine Estates Homeowners Association
     G.   1998 City of Florence Water Facilities Plan (4-14 Groundwater Treatment System)
     H.   5/10/93 Letter from Department of Transportation
     I.   Cost Analysis - Proposed Annexations
     J.   Water Needs Analysis - Proposed Annexations
     K.   The Cost of Growth in Oregon: 1998 Report
     L.   February 2, 2001 CFF letter re: Morales Annexation