08/11/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Sloat said southeast Eugene area neighbors are gathering their petitions to be presented to City Council for the change of electrical service to the e Willow Creek area and that City staff is not involved in this process. Ms. Ehrman asked Mr. Sercombe for background on the pue, the boundary issue, and why the City has to interfere with this boundary discussion. Mr. Sercombe said there are ways to change the boundaries--the boundaries can be set by the PUC. He said that when there are two competing utilities for the same area, the easiest way is for the utilities to agree to a contractual boundary change, and the change can then be approved by the pue. He said that the easiest way--in terms of a direct action--to change the boundary, is for the municipality to condemn the assets of a utility within an allocated territory. He said there is no formal way to change the boundary, short of negotiated agreements and condemnation is an informal way to change these boundaries. Mr. Holmer asked EWES when the Willow Creek substation was erected and how much it cost to build it. Mr. Damewood said that he did not have the information available, but would provide it to Mr. Holmer. Mr. Damewood said that the substation was built to serve the area that EWES already serves to the east and west and that EWES's board of commissioners have not taken any formal action on this issue. Mr. Damewood said that EWES's August 7, 1986, memorandum is a position statement on this subject--it was prepared by EWES staff and was reviewed by the EWES board of commissioners without comment. He said that EWES would like electric service boundaries that are consistent with the Eugene city limits and the urban growth boundary. He said that EWEB and LEC already maintain duplicated electric facilities in the Eugene area, in addition to the existing LEe service boundary in the Willow Creek area, which forms a peninsula within the EWEB area, which would only contribute to the duplication of service for that basin, but would create a system planning and e construction problem for EWES since EWES serves customers on three sides of this peninsula, and EWEB lines would need to be constructed either through or a round the LEC area. He said that either alternative would result in additional cost for EWES for duplication of facilities for both utilities. He said EWES wants to maintain a good working relationship with LEC and hopes that both utili ties can negotiate a working agreement to allow for the elimination of duplicated electric facilities in the southern and western areas of Eugene. Mr. Damewood said no analysis was made on the cost of the condemnation process or what effect condemnation would have on the rate payers and EWEB. Mr. Miller said it appeared that the EWEB territory extended far beyond the urban growth boundary and the city limits and he asked if EWES and LEC have discussed the possibility of trading properties. He was advised that no recent discussions on this subject had taken place. Mr. Sercombe explained the condemnation process. He said that the City would condemn assets of the utility that are located in the property that EWES and the City would serve. He said that the basis for valuation on such a case would be the difference in the value of the utilities' fixed assets, not in terms of future life. He said that there are poles and wires on the property and an appraiser would give the value amount to the City prior to instituting condemnation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner Session August 11, 1986 Page 6