The Hearing Official also erred in completely ignoring Response Committee concerns about this <br />document, even though this document contains several flaws that render uncertain the <br />satisfaction of the obligation it purports to create. Therefore, the Hearings Official erred on Page <br />55 of her Decision when she indicated that the [owners'] written statement is sufficient to. <br />demonstrate compliance with EC 9.8320 (7) ( c These document's flaws include, but are not <br />limited to, the following: <br />a) The statement is not "irrevocable." The owners apparently can withdraw from this <br />obligation for any reason and without ramifications. <br />b) The statement is not secured by any other tangible asset. Typically, a document that <br />purports to create a large financial obligation, would be secured in some manner, <br />optimally by cash deposit or the subject property. <br />c) The document provides no recourse for the city or EWEB to counter any possible future <br />attempt by the owners to invalidate or circumvent their so-called "commitment" to fund <br />their share of the: cost. <br />d) The document does not specify any time frame or completion date by which the owners <br />must fulfill their obligations under the document. <br />e) The document has no parameters for on-going validity or survivorship. Future owners of <br />the subject property, including heirs, should be bound by the requirements that the <br />document purports to create. <br />f) The code requirement states that the form be "acceptable to the city manager." Even <br />though the city may, not possess a "stock" form that it can provide to the applicant, the <br />lack of a prescribed document does not eliminate the applicant's burden of obtaining city <br />manager approval for the form it has created and signed. There is no indication that the <br />city manager has reviewed or approved this form. <br />g) The EWEB employee who "accepted" the form is a Water Engineering Supervisor; <br />however, there is no indication that he is authorized to "bind" EWEB in legal matters. <br />He does not appear to hold a corporate title. There is no evidence supporting his <br />authority to "accept" the owners' commitment on behalf of EWEB. <br />h) The financial commitment that the owners are stating that they are undertaking is not <br />defined. Apparently, EWEB will determine that amount at a later date. How can the <br />owners commit to meeting an obligation about which not even the basic facts are known? <br />i) The document provides no methodology to determine the amount EWEB will charge the <br />owners, which is the amount they are currently indicating that they committing to pay to <br />satisfy EC 9.8329 (7) ( c The document contains no arbitration clause and no recourse <br />for either parry if the required amount is disputed by either party. <br />24 <br />