Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/1993 Work Session . . . City of Springfield Joint Dinner Meeting MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND SPRINGFIELD UTILITY BOARD HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 The City of Springfield Council met in a joint meeting with the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) at the SUB Board Room, 250 N. A Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 13, 1993, at 6:35 p.m. with Councilor Larry Schanz and Vice Chair Tom Cochran presiding. Dinner was served at 6:00 p.m. ATTENDANCE Present from the City Council were Councilors Schanz, Beyer, Walters, Shaver and Burge. Also present were Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Recorder Eileen Stein, Development Services Director Susan Daluddung and Economic Development Manager John Tamulonis. Present from the SUB Board were Vice Chair Cochran and Board members Adams, Kittredge and Langdon. Also present were General Manager Steve Loveland, Public Information Officer Mary Ann Rhodes and Assistant to the General Manager Pamela Tuft. 1. Economic Development Activities in Springfield and Support and Cooperation Between SUB and the City. General Manager Steve Loveland reported on SUB's observations of the economic development efforts undertaken by the city. He said that SUB is supportive of the city's efforts and wants to participate and assist whenever possible. He mentioned SUB's role in the pending Koppe property acquisition in the Gateway Special Light Industrial (SLI) district of providing assistance with utility cost deferrals. He also mentioned SUB's participation in the Sports Center project. These were two examples of how SUB would hope to playa supportive role in the city's future economic development efforts. Councilor Shaver asked whether there was an error in communication between the city and SUB regarding the confidentiality of the Koppe property acquisition prior to its becoming public knowledge. Mr. Loveland eXplained the sequence of events and the group discussed the need for better communication and coordination regarding the status of future economic development projects that may be confidential. 2. Consideration of the Future of Glenwood and Possible Annexation. Development Services Director Susan Daluddung provided a status report of the Glenwood annexation issue. She reported that during the past year, the Budget Committee had recommended not funding a Glenwood annexation study. However, that status changed when the city was presented with a petition signed by 80 percent of the Glenwood residents asking to be brought into Springfield's planning jurisdiction instead of being in the planning jurisdiction of the city of Eugene. . . . Joint Dinner Meeting Minutes September 13, 1993 Page 2 The Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) has been contracted with to prepare an annexation study which will examine only factual data (ie. cost of providing urban services) relevant to the annexation issue. She reported the study will not examine the political dimensions of the Glenwood annexation question. That would have to be debated in context of the results of the factual study being prepared by LCOG. The group discussed what would occur after the study was completed. Ms. Daluddung replied the next steps would depend on the political factors affecting the decision. Assuming there was a decision to proceed, the next steps could range from a gradual annexation to a decision to conduct an election to annex Glenwood immediately. Councilor Burge reported the Council is favorable to annexing Glenwood, but must make a decision within the context of knowing the financial realities first. He mentioned the original jurisdictional agreement with the city of Eugene and it was his opinion that the city of Eugene is in violation of that agreement by not extending sewer services to Glenwood within the first five years of the agreement. 3. City of Springfield Annexation Policy and Direction Ms. Daluddung reported on the city's comprehensive annexation study being prepared. She commented that SUB (and Willamalane) has been represented on the staff study group developing the report. The study group has been examining alternatives and negotiating the issues to be addressed. Ms. Daluddung mentioned the types of issues being discussed by the study group and the annexation options. She reported the study will be presented to the City Council in October. She would be willing to provide a briefing to SUB sometime after that. Mr. Loveland asked whether Rainbow Water District was represented in the study. Ms. Daluddung replied that Rainbow was represented and that the Rainbow/SUB annexation issues were being discussed. Mr. Loveland asked whether the study group was considering the impact of providing water services to higher elevation areas. He did not want it necessary for SUB to construct a fourth water reservoir sooner than necessary, although he acknowledged the city would probably be faced with development pressures in some of these areas. Ms. Daluddung responded that issue had been discussed. 4. Forecasts for the Future Growth and Economic Prospects for Springfield Mr. Loveland commented that Springfield's future growth and economic prospects were optimistic. He felt that Springfield would continue to grow at a steady rate of 3% per year. He said he was appreciative of SUB's inclusion in the annexation study and looked forward to continuing to work with the city in such projects. . . . Joint Dinner Meeting Minutes September 13, 1993 Page 3 Councilor Burge asked whether the City Council and the SUB Board could improve communication and coordination. Board member Kittredge suggested re-instituting the SUB/City Council liaison. The group discussed ideas for better communication including providing meeting agendas to each other and regular meetings between the Mayor and the Board Chair. By consensus, it was agreed that meeting agendas should be shared. Ms. Daluddung provided some statistical information regarding Springfield's economic growth. For example, in 1991 the number of building permits issued was 150. In 1993 (through August) the number of building permits issued was already 162. Similar statistics were provided regarding single family home building permits, total investment, jobs created and growth. The statistics revealed significant building activity in Springfield over the last three years which Ms. Daluddung attributed to Springfield's "can do" attitude regarding property development. She said this attitude was also being noticed at the state level and the city has received numerous state assistance grants because of the city's reputation for being able to carry a project through to completion. Councilor Burge commented the metropolitan planning debate, if successfully concluded, would provide the city greater flexibility and responsiveness to pursue it's economic development goals. Councilor Shaver asked why EWEB provides utility service to Weyerhauser and not SUB. Mr. Loveland responded this is a significant concern to SUB and he explained how this came to be. He commented that SUB continues to pursue Weyerhauser's business and was optimistic that sometime in the future Weyerhauser would make the transition. 5. SUB's Proposed Electric Generating Resource Projects Mr. Loveland discussed SUB's proposed electric generating resource projects and reviewed a list of proposed projects. The purpose of this effort is to make SUB less dependent upon electricity from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) which has been increasing the price of power significantly in the past few years. Mr. Loveland noted the projects may require the issuance of approximately $90 million in revenue bonds in the future. More information would be forthcoming when the time comes to discuss the bond measure with the community. Councilor Shaver asked how the city could provide more assistance to SUB in the area of promoting energy conservation. Mr. Loveland replied city staff already provide assistance by incorporating energy conservation standards into building codes. Councilor Shaver asked about the difference between high power sodium (HPS) and low power sodium (LPS) and what was SUB's opinion about each. Pamela Tuft, Assistant to the General Manager for Rates, Resources and Regional Matters, noted that LPS lights are more energy-efficient however the common . . . Joint Dinner Meeting Minutes September 13, 1993 Page 4 complaint is they are not as bright. She said LPS lights are actually as bright as HPS lights and that for the same output, HPS lights consume 35% more energy. 6. SUB's Water Wellhead Protection Program Mr. Loveland explained SUB's water wellhead protection program. He said this effort is necessary in order to protect the city's natural groundwater resources and to make sure the wellheads are not contaminated by surface groundwater uses. Councilor Burge asked how the wellhead protection could be achieved when the wells were in such urban locations. Mr. Loveland responded that protection can be achieved by developing good containment strategies as part of industrial development standards. Councilor Walters asked why SUB was not represented on the McKenzie Watershed Council being coordinated through EWEB and Lane County. Mr. Loveland replied the McKenzie Watershed Management Plan was focusing on the upper McKenzie which did not directly impact SUB. Councilor Walters felt SUB's interests would be better protected by being represented on the Watershed Council and urged SUB to become involved. Mr. Loveland reported SUB would be conducting wellhead testing at the wells on the Sports Center site which could require some encroachment onto the site. Councilor Shaver asked if SUB had reviewed the Conceptual Development Plan for the site. Mr. Loveland replied SUB had. Councilor Walters and the rest of the Council members complimented SUB for it's visionary projects and for protecting the community's future energy resources. ADJOURNMENT By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Minutes Recorder - Eileen Stein M13~~~4f! ayor ATTEST: ~ City Recorder #ES:6752