CC Minutes - 06/28/10 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka supported Mr. Ruiz's recommendation. While it was clear to him that provision of water outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) required council approval, the issue would be decided by the court. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Wilson said the City of Veneta had received a funding package consisting of $2.6 million in grants and $13 million in loans. The City of Veneta had to advise the U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development of its decision by July 13, 2010. Mr. Zelenka did not see the proposal before the council as the City of Eugene trying to tell the City of Veneta what do to within its UGB. The question was whether the action taken by the City of Eugene would be based on the principles of how it would make decisions, including the Growth Management Policies (GMP). He believed the sale of water to the City of Veneta violated GMP 1, 2, 5 and 10 and other sustainability issues related to sprawl versus compact urban growth. Ms. Taylor supported Mr. Ruiz's proposal. She thought the City of Eugene had the right to decide and it would be wrong to take the action of selling water without extremely convincing arguments to support such a decision. Ms. Piercy asked what role the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would have over a water line going to Veneta if it was determined that EWEB had the authority. Mr. Klein said it would depend on whether there were Eugene /Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) or Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (Rural Comp Plan) changes or Lane County permits the City of Veneta would be required to acquire. He did not know what land use issues would apply to building the pipeline. If the Lane County permitting process was an administrative one, it was unlikely that the BCC would be involved in a decision related to the water line. Mr. Pryor said the reason to sell or not sell water to the City of Veneta was related to intent, which would be an important discussion to have. However, as a Eugene City Councilor, his role was to assess and protect the interests of the City of Eugene and not Lane County. If the sale of water represented a risk to the City of Eugene, that would be a legitimate reason not to sell the water. If the reason was that the City of Eugene did not want the City of Veneta to grow or take other action, he did not have the authority to control what action another community took. He noted local control had been an important issue for the City of Eugene before the state legislature and every city was entitled to local control. It would be important for the City of Eugene to carefully and thoughtfully consider why it would or would not sell water to the City of Veneta. Mr. Brown asked if other parties involved in the question of selling water to the City of Veneta would pull back. Mr. Klein asked Jan Wilson, attorney for the western Environmental Law Center, representing the interveners, to comment on Mr. Brown's question. Ms. Wilson opined her agency would continue to participate. She observed that EWEB board member Jon Brown was quoted in that day's Register Guard saying this was not an adversarial position and there were not sides. It was a matter of everyone bringing forward their arguments for consideration by the court. Mr. Clark, referring to the three fundamental issues identified by Mr. Pryor, said he saw the council addressing the issue of authority to grant the privilege to sell the water tonight. Addressing if the water rights should be perfected, how they should be perfected and should water be sold to the City of Veneta should be addressed in the future. As a Eugene City Councilor, he had a duty to protect the largest amount of potential rights for future residents of Eugene. It was unknown how much water future generations would need or how much would be MINUTES Eugene City Council June 28, 2010 Page 4 Work Session