Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Klein stated that if the council decided as a policy matter that sale of water to the City of Veneta was a good <br />idea, then his answer to addressing the legal issue was to "punt it." He said he would recommend that the City <br />Council pass a resolution that indicated that sale of water to Veneta was a good idea and this would remove the <br />authority question. He explained that either EWEB had the authority to enter into the contract and it had done so, <br />or the council had the authority to grant permission and, through the resolution, it would have done so. He added <br />that if the council thought the legal issue was more important than the policy issue, then the council should direct <br />legal staff to go to court and fight about that issue. He also pointed out that the voters could be asked to clarify the <br />charter with a charter amendment. He advised the council, given the scarcity of resources, not to focus on the <br />legalities and to decide that the sale was a good idea. He said staff would draft a resolution reflecting that <br />regardless of who had the authority, the City approved of it. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the pipeline would come before the council. <br />Mr. Klein replied that it would not. He was uncertain what land use actions would be involved, but a Metro Plan <br />amendment would certainly come before the council. <br />Mr. Zelenka ascertained from Ms. Smith that Veneta could renew the contract into perpetuity after the initial 40- <br />year period. Mr. Taylor clarified that one party could terminate the contract with ten years notice. <br />Mr. Zelenka thought this meant that it would not add anything to Eugene's water right, it just meant that it would <br />make it bigger. Mr. Taylor responded that partial certification was the goal relative to helping secure the water <br />right. He stressed that Veneta was one example of how EWEB could achieve 25 percent certification by the year <br />2050. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the certification was "all or nothing;" could EWEB get by with 23 percent? Mr. Taylor <br />replied that they would walk away with only 23 percent of the water right if that was the case. <br />Ms. Smith reiterated that EWEB needed to show a plan and then make progress on the plan. She said the plan was <br />to work with communities and the contract with Veneta represented progress toward the plan. <br />In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Veneta Mayor Rick Ingram stated that they were waiting until the end <br />of the month to have a determination from the Rural Development Department and at that point Veneta would <br />receive a letter of conditions that would lay out what the grant would be, what the loan would be, and what <br />conditions Veneta would have to overcome to secure the funds. <br />Mr. Zelenka ascertained from Mr. Ingram that the pipeline would cost $17 million. Mr. Ingram said one <br />deliverable they needed in submitting the application had been the completion of a preliminary engineering report <br />and this was their cost estimate. <br />Ms. Wilson said a public forum was scheduled for the following night at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. She <br />stated that there would also be a public forum on June 14. <br />Mr. Clark looked forward to hearing public comment on this. He was favorably disposed to the idea that this was <br />intelligent long -term planning to perfect the water right. He was troubled by the authority question, however. <br />Mr. Klein said before the meeting on June 28, he would discuss the item further with Ms. Wilson, the City <br />Manager, and staff in order to determine whether there were more options than the three he had presented at the <br />meeting. <br />Mr. Taylor noted that three citizens had already submitted a challenge to the contract and this had been filed as part <br />MINUTES —Joint Meeting - Eugene Water & Electric Board and Eugene City Council June 7, 2010 <br />Page 7 <br />