My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 11/10/10 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2010
>
CC Minutes - 11/10/10 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 11:48:29 AM
Creation date
2/28/2011 2:51:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
11/10/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and made more water available. If Eugene suddenly needed the water, EWEB could cancel the contract. <br />He suggested the contract would benefit both parties. Mr. Pryor also wanted to move the issue forward to <br />a public hearing. He wanted to work out the remaining questions related to the authority of EWEB and <br />City to sell water. Mr. Pryor had yet to identify a real downside to the sale. <br />Mr. Zelenka said his concerns had nothing to do with Veneta, although he acknowledged that communi- <br />ty's lack of options. He said the Veneta contract did not secure the third McKenzie River water right and <br />only got the community "a little further down the road" toward reaching that goal. He suggested that for <br />Veneta to enter into a contract that could be terminated at any time was unrealistic, untenable, and at the <br />least, bad public policy. If there was to be such a contract, it should be permanent given the investment <br />Veneta was proposing to make. <br />Mr. Zelenka believed it was important for Eugene to preserve its water rights, although he pointed out the <br />new water right would serve the community well past 2050 and there was no other significant party in line <br />for the right. His concerns were more focused on Eugene's own policies and plans as well as concerns <br />about regional planning consistency with Eugene land use laws and growth management policies. He <br />recalled that he had asked earlier how the contract and EWEB as a regional water provider was consistent <br />with Eugene's Growth Management Policies 1, 2, 5 and 10. Mr. Zelenka wanted to see findings of <br />consistency with those goals. He also suggested the contract created a conflict with State Goal 11, which <br />spoke to the efficient provision of municipal services, and believed that addressing those conflicts would <br />be critical in the appeals process he anticipated. <br />Mr. Brown believed the proposal had initially been presented as an absolute necessity to allow EWEB to <br />perfect its third water right, which was 118 million gallons daily. Eugene was currently using about three <br />percent of the third water right, or about 3.5 million gallons daily. If Veneta's demand was added, that <br />would total 7.5 million galls daily. Eugene needed to demonstrate that it would use 25 percent of the third <br />right within a reasonable time, and 25 percent was 29.5 million gallons daily. Mr. Brown did not think the <br />contract helped much in perfecting the third right. <br />Mr. Brown suggested the question before the council was whether EWEB became the regional water <br />supplier for southern Lane County. He pointed out that Coburg, Creswell, Junction City, and Elmira <br />might also need more water. They could only grow if they bought water from EWEB, and he questioned <br />whether that was desirable. He suggested that EWEB might not need the third water right, pointing out <br />that it was adequate to serve one million people. <br />Mr. Brown recalled that the 1976 charter amendment vote had been all about controlling growth and <br />preventing sprawl, and the voters had agreed with those goals. He asserted that Veneta was a bedroom <br />community for Eugene. He estimated that 90 percent of the working population worked in Eugene and <br />drove to Eugene on Highway 126 and West l ltn Avenue and asked "what do we get out of it ?" <br />Noting that the Agenda Item Summary mentioned that the council could consider a resolution of support <br />for the contract, Ms. Taylor suggested the council could consider a resolution of denial as well. City <br />Manager Ruiz concurred. <br />In response to Ms. Smith's remarks, Ms. Taylor pointed out that the Veneta contract did nothing in regard <br />to providing Eugene with a second water source. She considered that subject irrelevant to the discussion. <br />She wanted to hear about objections to the contract, its impact on long -range planning, and the precedent <br />the contract set for other small communities. She said it was good to help a neighbor but the council also <br />needed to protect Eugene and the environment. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 10, 2010 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.