Florence Planning Commission
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon 97439

RE: Resolution 01-05-08-22
    Annexation of 41.4 acres located east of Highway 101 and north of Munsel Lake Road
    Applicant: Mike and Miriam Cocciolo

Dear Commissioners:

This annexation request should be denied for all the reasons set out in my earlier testimony, and the following reasons:

1. Attached is a letter from the Heceta Water District to the Planning Commission regarding
another annexation in this same area.  The objections the District put forth hold true for this
annexation as well. As of this date, the City has not entered into any agreement with the District for provision of water to this parcel.  A draft agreement has been delivered to the City, but the necessary review by the City has only just begun.  No negotiation meetings between the Water District and the City have been scheduled.  Given past joint efforts between the City and the Water District, it would be foolhardy for anyone to try to predict when, or even if, an agreement will finally be reached.

2. The City’s position vis a vis water supply is perhaps even worse than at the time the Water
District submitted its objections in February.

      A.  As reported by the City Manager at the last City Council meeting, the City’s efforts
     at rehabilitation of some wells has not been as successful as originally hoped.

      B.  The City’s schedule for obtaining water rights for new wells has been put back a
     number of months, at a minimum, due to concerns by the Water Resources
     Department of potential harm to wetlands and Munsel Creek from drawdown by the
     proposed wells.

3. If the City annexes these properties without an agreement with the Water District in place:

      A.  State law dictates that the City MUST provide the water to the annexed parcels.

      B.  The property MUST be withdrawn from the District boundaries, and the District
     cannot provide water outside district boundaries, without an agreement.

4. Whether due to the lack of normal rainfall, or the interruption of the City’s well water supply
because of rehabilitation efforts, the fact remains that the City has had to purchase water from the Water District already, long before the normal start of the “summer” demand.  This, alone is a clear indication that the City does not have, and cannot currently supply, sufficient water for this annexation and the other three annexations already recommended by the Planning Commission.

5. No one has considered the fact that  if these properties are annexed, city zoning will allow
a much higher density development than would have occurred under county zoning.  Higher density means higher water usage.  If the District, through agreement with the City, assumes the responsibility for providing water to these properties, then the District’s one million gallon per day limitation for withdrawal of water from Clear Lake will be reached even sooner.  Once that limitation is reached, the District will no longer be able to sell ANY water to the City.  The existing residents inside the City limits will have to ration water until another water source is developed.

For these reasons, the Planning Commission should deny this request for annexation.

Thank you,

Zane Ziemer
President

Attachments:
     A.   Heceta Water District Objection 2/15/01