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