Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Brown stated Mr. Ruiz’s recommendation was consistent with the basis of EWEB’s recommendation, as stated in Attachment D to tonight’s agenda, Testimony to Eugene City Council, dated June 28, 2010, in which EWEB requested that any resolution passed was written to facilitate continuation of the validation process through the courts. Ms. Piercy directed councilors to a memorandum from former City of Eugene Planner Jim Croteau which provided a history of the water rights issue, and EWEB’s desire to be able to supply water to the City. She believed the authority issue should be settled, which would give the City of Veneta and the environmental interests, time to meet, and enable the City of Eugene to complete the Envision Eugene process. Mr. Pryor appreciated the work done on the issue, and Mr. Ruiz’s proposal, which he expected would be in the best interests of Eugene. Mr. Pryor identified three fundamental issues: 1) authority to grant the privilege to sell the water; 2) should the water rights be perfected and how they should be perfected, and 3) should whoever had the authority agree to a contract to sell water to the City of Veneta. He asked if one or two of the issues could be resolved and the most important one(s) carried forward. He asked if the City would be blocked from resolving the authority question at a later date if the City Council granted, through a City resolution, the authority to sell the water. City Attorney Glenn Klein said if the City Council approved the water sale, the contract would be deemed valid by a judge and would resolve the authority question. He opined if the council wanted the charter question decided, it should not approve the water sale at this time. He added that the council could reconsider the issue after a judge had declared whether the City or EWEB had the authority to decide whether the sale should take place. If the council acted tonight, Mr. Klein thought the council would significantly diminish the chance that the court would decide the charter question. In response to Mr. Pryor, Mr. Klein said the charter question could only be resolved in two ways, by the court or by the voters. Mr. Poling said, regardless of whether the council approved or disapproved the water sale, the council needed to clarify the issue of who had the authority. He appreciated the proposal set forth by Mr. Ruiz which he would support. Mr. Clark supported Mr. Ruiz’s recommendation. Mr. Clark averred the water rights belonged to the City of Eugene. The City Council should decide how the water rights were addressed in the future and which water rights should be perfected into the future. Mr. Brown believed Mr. Ruiz’s recommendation provided the correct direction for the City of Eugene. He opined there could be other cities that applied for the City’s water rights. He said the council would need to determine if the City wanted to become the regional water supplier. Ms. Ortiz was comfortable with the direction offered by Mr. Ruiz’s proposal. She asked if the City of Eugene had the authority to make the decision based on what other cities may or may not want to do. Mr. Klein said if the City Council had the authority under the charter to authorize or not authorize EWEB to wholesale water, it could authorize or not authorize for any reason. If the City Council did not have the authority, and the EWEB board had the authority, the only say the City Council would have related to how other cities grew would be the same authority any other city had with respect to how Eugene grew. If other cities did not like the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 28, 2010 Page 3 Work Session