Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem C: EWEB Sale of Water to Veneta ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Work Session: Eugene Water & Electric Board Sale of Water to Veneta Meeting Date: January 11, 2011 Agenda Item Number: C Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-8441 ISSUE STATEMENT Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) entered into a contract to sell water to the City of Veneta. EWEB filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare that EWEB has independent authority to enter into that contract without council approval. On October 27, 2010, the circuit court issued its decision finding that EWEB, rather than the City Council, has the authority to sell water to Veneta. The City of Veneta has asked that the council weigh in on whether the council supports the proposed sale of surplus water to Veneta. BACKGROUND In 2009, EWEB informed the City Manager about EWEB’s interest to sell water to Veneta in order to certify part of EWEB’s third water right and to help ensure that the water in this water right would be available to Eugene residents in the future when needed. In mid-April 2010, EWEB and the City of Veneta signed a water-sale contract. EWEB then submitted the contract to the Lane County Circuit Court for validation. On October 27, 2010, the circuit court decided that EWEB, rather than the City Council, has the authority to sell water to Veneta. The City has appealed that decision. There have been several public meetings and hearings on this issue. On May 12, 2010, the council was presented with background information on the water sale and the court process. On June 7, 2010, a joint meeting with the EWEB Board was held; a Public Information Forum was held on June 8, 2010; and a Public Hearing was held on June 14, 2010. On June 28, 2010, this issue was brought back to the council. At that meeting, the council voted to postpone a decision on whether the council supported the proposed sale of water to Veneta until after the Charter authority question was resolved by the court. On October 27, 2010, the circuit court issued its decision that EWEB, rather than the City Council, has the authority to sell water to Veneta. On November 10, 2010, a work session was held where the City of Veneta presented information to the council. On December 13, 2010, a public hearing was held to hear from the community on this issue. As of January 5, 2010, and subsequent to the December 13, 2010, public hearing, the City has received 10 written comments. Those comments are attached as Exhibit A. Any \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110111\S110111C.doc additional written comments received before the work session on January 11, 2010, will be provided at the work session. During the November 10, 2010, work session, information was requested regarding how the sale of surplus water to Veneta was consistent with the City’s Growth Management Policies 1, 2, 5, and 10, and how the sale related to and whether or not it was consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals 2, 11, and 14. In the case of the City’s Growth Management Policies, it is difficult to make determinations of consistency with respect to the sale of surplus water to the City of Veneta given the Eugene- specific nature of the policies. The Growth Management Policies were more recently integrated into the City’s land use code which also helps clarify their scope and purpose. It states “These policies shall serve as guidance as the city considers proposed changes to this land use code” (EC 9.0020(1)). Accordingly, they were not meant to be used as a means for evaluating regional growth issues, including how surrounding communities should grow. Additionally, the Statewide Planning Goals do not apply to this sale of surplus water because the sale would not result in the application of urban services onto rural lands. Accordingly, surplus water could be provided to Veneta without conflicting with or violating these statewide goals. The fact that these policies and strategies do not directly apply to this sale does not end the discussion, but rather, highlights the need to have a broader discussion about developing a “Regional Water Master Plan” and the issues and opportunities associated with such an effort. Issues such as water right perfection, addressing and mitigating risk, infrastructure planning and costs, efficiency and cost savings opportunities, regional growth, and triple-bottom-line analysis could all be discussed as part of a regional planning effort. Councilor Zelenka has drafted his thoughts for beginning such an effort. A copy of this is attached as Exhibit B. EWEB is open to further discussion on a regional drinking water plan to test interest from other agencies and if there is interest, to develop a clear purpose, scope and roles/responsibilities. EWEB has stated that for years they have participated in regional planning efforts and continues to see the value in taking a regional and long-term view on drinking water supplies. The 1963 water right was applied for within the context of a regional water supply relationship. The most viable approach to securing a secondary source of drinking water for Eugene customers in the future is via partnerships that address mutual and differing needs of our neighbors. In any case, the City of Veneta has requested the City of Eugene support the sale of surplus water pending the outcome of the appeal. While Veneta’s Annual Daily Demand for their 20 year build out is four million gallons per day (mgd), an approval of three mgd will allow Veneta to move forward with the project and take advantage of the federal funding package they have received. Additional provisions may also be included as a condition of support. RELATED CITY POLICIES There are no specific City policies to be considered by the City Council at this meeting; it is a status update and informational meeting. \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110111\S110111C.doc COUNCIL OPTIONS No action is required at this time; however, options will be provided at the time of City Council deliberations and action scheduled for January 24, 2011. CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION No recommendation is suggested at this time. A recommendation will be provided for the City Council deliberations and action scheduled for January 24, 2011. SUGGESTED MOTION None at this time. A suggested motion will be provided at the time of City Council deliberations and action scheduled for January 24, 2011. ATTACHMENTS A. Written Comments Received Between December 13, 2010, and January 5, 2010. B. Councilor Zelenka’s Regional Water Master Plan document. FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Brenda Wilson Telephone: 541-682-8441 Staff E-Mail: brenda.s.wilson@ci.eugene.or.us \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110111\S110111C.doc ATTACHMENT B Regional Water Master Plan Focus of the Master Plan: The focus here would be a strategic planning and growth policy Master Plan rather than a technical engineering and distribution system Master Plan. The main issue to discuss and decide could include:  Where to supply water?  How to get it there?  What would be the source of the water?  How does it relate to securing long-term water rights?  How does EWEB’s regional water provision effect growth in the region?  How much money can be saved by region cooperation?  What are the risks associated with our current water system and how can they be mitigated (ie – single source of water)?  How does regional water supply affect the triple bottom line of social equity, environment and economy? The benefits of such a plan would be:  Lower cost of providing water services.  Increased short & long-term reliability of water service.  Lower risk associated with current single water supply.  Provision of adequate water to supply projected growth.  More certainty about water rights.  Regional cooperation.  Lower environmental impacts. Who should do this Master Plan? I would hope to see this as a joint City of Eugene and EWEB effort, whereby they would jointly hire a consultant to facilitate the process. The process could also be funded by a larger group. In addition, since it is a regional plan we would need to include other regional partners in the discussion, such as: SUB, City of Springfield, surrounding cities, and other entities (environmental groups and private water companies). The first step of the process would be an up-front scoping meeting to develop the Scope of Work (SOW). All the partners would participate. We would discuss what issues need to be addressed and how we would go about doing the SOW. The model for proceeding would be the West Eugene Collaborative. Outline of the Master Plan Document: 1. Description of stakeholder committee and SOW meeting summary 2. Key Issues and Goals 3. Benefits of a Regional Water Master Plan 4. Requirements and options for EWEB being a regional water provider a. EWEB second water source options b. Infrastructure need options c. Water rights (and transfers to SUB?) options d. Land use issues e. Costs f. Financing options 5. Interest from stakeholders in future water service from EWEB 6. Define options or scenarios for regional water service provision 7. Scenario analysis a. Does the scenario meet the goals b. Cost of each scenario c. Triple Bottom Line analysis on each scenario (environment, economic, and equity) 8. Establish Evaluation Criteria and Weighting 9. Scoring and Ranking of Scenarios 10. Preferred Alternative