Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

She wanted to hear about objections to the contract, its impact on long-range planning, and the precedent the contract set for other small communities. She said it was good to help a neighbor but the council also needed to protect Eugene and the environment. Ms. Taylor asked if Veneta had considered cisterns. Mr. Ingham said Veneta had considered cisterns but they were not found to be feasible. Ms. Taylor remembered when everyone had cisterns to catch rainwater and suggested it was another possible solution. Ms. Taylor indicated she was willing to move the topic onto a public hearing and would listen carefully to both sides. Ms. Smith agreed with Ms. Taylor that the issue was not necessarily related to a secondary source. Veneta was a small user. However, other communities were watching the situation, and EWEB General Manager Roger Gray had conversations with neighboring utilities and community partners about participating in the development of a secondary source shared back-up plan. She believed other communities were watching to see if EWEB could find a way to help Veneta move forward with its planning, and suggested that success would be indicative of how willing Eugene would be as a community to engage in a different approach. Mayor Piercy said she felt strongly about the need to secure water for the future, so perfecting the water rights seemed important to her. She acknowledged that the council had concerns about growth and development but at the same time Veneta was facing an immediate water problem. Mayor Piercy believed that there was a broader issue Eugene needed to consider, that of the water shortages that other small Lane County communities might face, which required a regional discussion that needed to occur soon. Mayor Piercy thought that discussion fit into the Envision Eugene planning effort and other related planning processes. Mr. Clark said when one’s neighbor’s house was on fire one did not deny him the use of one’s garden hose. He believed that Veneta was in real need. Mr. Clark said there were other parties watching the discussion, including the bond raters. He was proud of Eugene’s good bond rating and said the council counted on its bond rating to save money. He pointed out that bond rating agencies consider things like water supply, which impacted the cost of borrowing. He wanted EWEB to perfect more water rights so that Eugene could maintain its infrastructure at an optimum level and maintain its bond rating. Mr. Zelenka disagreed with Mr. Clark’s analogy, saying that Veneta’s house was not “on fire” given it had enough water to meet existing demand. He discussed the requirements of Statewide Goal 2, which addressed coordinated regional planning. He said that currently, there was no regional water planning and there was no master plan speaking to EWEB’s role as a regional water provider or Eugene’s role in that. The focus of the discussion had been on perfecting the third water right in the absence of a plan. The Veneta contract moved EWEB toward achieving 25 percent of the third right, which was important to reserving the next 25 percent, but it would require several contracts the size of Veneta’s to do so. He said a master plan could lay out next steps. Mr. Zelenka said he had asked EWEB General Manger Roger Gray if EWEB had a master plan or was planning to do such a plan, and Mr. Gray had indicated to him that there was no such plan in progress or intention to do one. He asked Ms. Smith to address that issue and whether EWEB was committed to such a plan. Ms. Smith clarified that EWEB had a water master plan focused on Eugene and the infrastructure needs to support growth in Eugene. She acknowledged that EWEB lacked a regional master plan. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 10, 2010 Page 4 Work Session