Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to add the proposed revision <br /> to Section 45(1), concerning shod-term debt for the Eugene Water & Electric <br /> Board (EWEB), to the list of noncontroversial items. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly recalled that the council discussed the issue before, and he perceived it as a <br />housekeeping item. He said that EWEB suggested the change after the committee completed its <br />task, and it essentially recognized that there were financial entities other than banks. <br /> <br />Ms. Walston recalled discussion of the suggested change with the EWEB commissioners at the <br />February 25, 2002, joint work session. There had been agreement at that time to pursue the <br />change. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he would support the motion but was somewhat concerned that staff was not <br />working toward a broader resolution of the other, larger issues related to EWEB. He had heard <br />no progress reports related to the issues, and he wanted to know what progress was being made <br />with those discussions. He interpreted the motion as maintaining the status quo and even giving <br />EWEB more independent authority. Mr. Meisner thought the relationship between the City and <br />EWEB needed to be better defined. He recollected the council giving direction to staff to <br />establish a new committee relationship with EWEB to look at the EWEB-City charter issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the text before the council exceeded the definition of <br />"housekeeping," and noted that the text before the council was not considered by the committee. <br />She said that the last sentence, which sounded like a "fire wall," was not a concept discussed by <br />the committee. Ms. Bettman thought the voters would perceive the change as going beyond <br />housekeeping, and the council would have to work to clarify the issue. She called for the <br />development of a list of minor amendments that could be forwarded to the voters along with the <br />housekeeping changes. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor opposed the motion because she thought the issue should be addressed as a minor <br />change rather than a housekeeping change. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that housekeeping changes were often not just clerical errors or minor in <br />nature. They were often needed to meet changes in the law. She considered the first part of the <br />proposed change a housekeeping change because it merely addressed a change in terminology. <br />She considered the more substantial change that which provided more protection to the public, <br />and which placed more constraint on EWEB. She said that might not be housekeeping in nature, <br />but she thought the voters would appreciate the extra protection. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson. Speaking to Mr. Meisner, he said he also wanted to see a <br />joint EWEB-City committee or task force to look at the fundamentals of the relationship, but he <br />thought the motion could be considered separately from that. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked the committee members present if they had comments on the proposed change, <br />based on what the committee discussed. Mr. Tollenaar said that the committee considered the <br />language offered by EWEB, with the exception of the last sentence in the proposed addition to <br />Section 45(1). He agreed that the remaining text was housekeeping in nature, but wanted to call <br />out for the council that it was his opinion that the given current circumstances surrounding <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />