Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey declared a potential conflict of interest as he owns property in the subject area; the City <br />Attorney's Office had indicated he may participate in the discussion. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov, Mayor Morrisette said that the Eugene Water & <br />Electric Board (EWEB) had expressed a willingness to work with the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) in <br />providing service to the area. Regarding tax revenue, Mr. Kelley said that even with the revenue from the <br />150,000-200,000 properties in the area, it still resulted in a loss over 20 years. He addressed schools by <br />saying that both superintendents continue to discuss supervision of schools in Glenwood, Goshen, and the <br />Gateway areas. He confirmed that both utilities have pledged to implement whatever the elected officials <br />decide. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar pointed out that Option 1 does not identify a procedure for transferring the "territory," adding <br />that his research indicates that there are several ways to initiate a transfer: a joint resolution of the two <br />councils; a petition from 10 percent of the residents of the territory, or 50 percent of landowners; or, a <br />boundary commission resolution. He noted that if the City of Eugene objected to the proposal forwarded, it <br />would require an election within Eugene to approve the transfer. The same was true for Springfield if that <br />City Council or 10 percent of the residents objected to the proposal. Mr. Tollenaar also noted that the report <br />speaks of the revenue impact on the City of Springfield but does not address that for Eugene. He said Option <br />2 should produce more thorough research. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Tollenaar's comments, particularly with losses, given the development potential <br />for that area. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed support for Option 2 and asked for information on the impact to Eugene's industrial <br />land inventory, adding he was not in favor of expanding the urban growth boundary (UGB) due to a loss of <br />industrial land from that area. He pointed out that there was no consistency in public input garnered from <br />resident, businesses, and property owners in the area and hoped for a more careful poll if Option 2 is adopted. <br />Mr. Meisner asked staff also to clarify the assertion in the report that there is "no net cost" to traffic <br />enforcement positions, noting he understood that there was no possibility of traffic enforcement paying for <br />itself. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said staffwill look at both the cost and revenue sides of the issue. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the most important thing was for public officials together to decide how best to provide <br />services to the citizens who live there. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to adopt Option 2: To receive the <br />Glenwood Jurisdictional Study from Springfield and direct that a staff analysis be <br />made of the entire Glenwood jurisdictional issue. <br />Mr. Johnson asked the council to consider Mr. Shaver's suggestion that there be some official level policy <br />involvement in Option 2. <br /> <br />Addressing a question from Mr. Laue, Mr. Johnson said staff considered referring the issue to the <br />Metropolitan Policy Committee but currently there was no indication of interest in "deep involvement" by <br />Lane County. <br /> <br />Minutes--Eugene City Council May 20, 1998 Page 3 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> <br /> <br />