Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Imperial River Park Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge city to address ODOT permit, water‑system and SDC gaps tied to Imperial River RV park
Summary
Public commenters alleged ODOT permits and utility permits for the Imperial River Company RV park omitted a later eight‑lot partition and that an 8" water main was installed without corresponding city invoicing; they urged the city to require corrected state permits and ensure developers pay appropriate System Development Charges.
Public commenters at Maupin’s Aug. 28 City Council meeting said state and city permitting for the Imperial River Company RV park and an associated lot partition appear inconsistent and urged the city to seek corrected permits and billing.
Mike Johnston read records he said were obtained from the Oregon Department of Transportation that show ODOT issued approach and utility permits in 2023 based on plans that referenced only the RV park, not a later subdivision the developer filed in November 2023. "ODOT approved the permits based on the incomplete information provided by Rob," Johnston said, and he asked whether the city will require amended ODOT permits for the seven or eight residential lots that now rely on under‑bridge access.
Karen Miller, citing city and county public records, said the developer installed an 8" water main tied into the city’s line and that the city’s outstanding invoice lists a $32,000 charge for smaller (2") connections. "There is no invoice for the 8\" waterline," Miller said, noting the SDC schedule caps out at charge tiers that do not match the infrastructure now in place and that a 6" sewer would carry materially higher SDCs. She asked whether the city would amend invoices, charge per‑site connection fees for each RV space, and collect water usage charges for the new main that contractors have used during construction.
Speakers asked the council to confirm whether the city required the developer to obtain updated state approvals after plans changed, and to explain any city oversight steps that were missed. The public commenters framed the requests as seeking transparency and corrective action where the city can act; no formal council action on the permits, SDCs or developer billing was recorded during the meeting.
