Board Members present: Susie Smith, Jeff Osanka, Mike Dyer, Sandra Bishop, and Dorothy Anderson.
Others present: Randy Berggren, Marti Ashbaugh, Manda Bednarczyck, Ken Beeson, Tom Buckhouse, Marty Douglass, Christina Evonuk, Cathy Hamilton, Dick Helgeson, John Mitchell, Jim Origliosso, Brenda Sirois, Ron Wilson, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; various members of the public; and Kim Kunkel, Minutes Recorder.
President Smith called the meeting to order.
AGENDA CHECK
Given the number and complexity of meeting minutes requiring approval, Vice President Osanka expressed concern that the amount of time allotted on the agenda for the Minutes item. President Smith stated that she would conduct a process check in the event the time allotted is insufficient.
ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Vice President Osanka alerted the Board to the fact that he continues to hear from constituents who echo his opposition to EWEB's compensation plan. President Smith suggested that Vice President Osanka provide the Board with the names and telephone numbers of those constituents so that Commissioners may respond to their concerns. Vice President Osanka explained that constituents opposing the compensation plan who are also EWEB employees often voice their opinions in confidence due to the merit component of the compensation plan.
MINUTES
The Commissioners reviewed the minutes of the August 18, 1998, Work Session and Special Board Meeting; September 1, 1998, Work Session and Regular Board Meeting; and September 15 Work Session and Special Board Meeting.
Vice President Osanka moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the minutes of the August 18 Work Session and Special Board Meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
Referring to paragraph 6 on page 5 of the September 1, 1998, Regular Board Meeting minutes, Vice President Osanka requested that sentence 2 be amended to read "For the record, Vice President Osanka declared that as an LCC employee, he has a potential conflict of interest in this matter."
Vice President Osanka moved, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to approve the minutes of the September 1, 1998, Work Session and Regular Board Meeting, as amended. The motion passed unanimously.
Referring to paragraph 2 on page 5 of the September 15, 1998, Special Board Meeting minutes, President Smith clarified that she meant to say "55th percentile" rather than "60th percentile." She did not request a revision to the minutes.
Referring to the first sentence of paragraph 4 on page 5 of the September 15, 1998, Special Board Meeting minutes, Vice President Osanka requested that "corrected" be replaced with "disagreed with."
Referring to paragraph 6 on page 6 of the September 15, 1998, Special Board Meeting minutes, Commissioner Bishop requested that the final sentence be amended to read "Commissioner Bishop said she appreciated the testimony of EWEB employee Rob Dotson and was confident that other employees with significant concerns would have felt welcome to testify."
Vice President Osanka said it was his belief that the existing language accurately reflected Commissioner Bishop's statement. He said the proposed change in wording results in a changed impression, and he therefore does not support the suggested revision.
Commissioner Anderson moved, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to approve the minutes of the September 15, 1998, Work Session and Regular Board Meeting, as amended. The motion passed, 4:1; with Vice President Osanka opposed.
CORRESPONDENCE
General Manager Randy Berggren reviewed a number of information items included in the meeting agenda packet, including
With regard the updated Board Meeting schedule, Vice President Osanka said the minutes of a previous Board Meeting reflect the fact that Mr. Berggren agreed to report to the Board the date on which the General Manager's review will take place. He said the meeting schedule does not indicate when the review will take place. Mr. Berggren responded that he provided the Board with what he understood was requested. He said he would follow any additional direction issued from the Board.
Vice President Osanka stated that two Commissioners had requested that the review take place prior to the end of the calendar year. Noting that she had given the matter considerable thought, Commissioner Anderson suggested that the Board conduct this review, and all future General Manager reviews, during the first Board meeting in January. She said the agenda of the first meeting in January is consistently light. Additionally, she said the review is not only of the General Manger, but of the Board and its working relationship with the General Manager. She said conducting the review in January would be a positive way to begin a new year.
Vice President Osanka stated that the difference between conducting the review during the first meeting in January and other proposed meeting dates, is that he will no longer be a member of the Board in January. He said that if the review is held during the meeting in January, his comments, as a Board Member, will not be captured. He reminded the Board that the review was originally scheduled for August 18 and has been continually delayed.
Commissioner Dyer expressed support for Commissioner Anderson's suggestion to conduct the review during the first meeting in January. He suggested that if the review is held in January, that Mr. Berggren's contract be changed to a calendar year agreement, consistent with his supplemental compensation plan.
Vice President Osanka expressed his opinion that if the Board decides to regularly conduct the General Manager review in January, it should begin doing so next January so that he is not prevented from commenting as an acting Board Member.
Noting that there are a number of areas of interest the Board should address prior to the end of the year, Commissioner Bishop said she was comfortable delaying the General Manger review until January as part of a Board decision to regularly conduct the review in January of each year.
Vice President Osanka stated that unlike himself, the incoming Board Member will have no knowledge of the General Manager and will be in no position to evaluate the General Manager. He said he resents Commissioner Anderson's proposal to defer the review so that he is unable to make comments that will become part of the General Manger's record.
Commissioner Dyer stated that he would not be in attendance at the October 14th and 20th Board meetings. Commissioner Bishop said she would be absent from the December 1 meeting.
PUBLIC INPUT
Rick Piper, identifying himself as an EWEB Electric Crafts employee, noted that a letter from the Electric Crafts employees concerning the compensation plan had been submitted to the General Manager. Noting that a number of Electric Crafts employees were present in the audience, Mr. Piper said that although the Board had not had an opportunity to review the letter, he was willing to address any questions Commissioners might have.
Referring to comments made by Electric Crafts employee Rob Dotson during the previous Board Meeting, President Smith said it was her understanding that Electric Crafts employees are concerned about the impact of the pay plan's use of the 55th percentile of market. She inquired as to whether employees are aware that the plan affords them the opportunity to achieve pay equivalent to the 75th percentile of market in recognition of exceptional performance. Mr. Piper responded that he believes employees are aware of that opportunity. He read the letter that was submitted to Mr. Berggren on behalf of Electric Crafts employees. He said employees' main concern is that animosity will result from one person earning a higher wage than another person because all employees perceive their work as exceptional. He said such animosity may comprise teamwork and safety.
Commissioner Dyer expressed interest in knowing whether other utilities have different pay standards for the electric crafts trades.
WATER SUPPLY PLAN REVIEW
Referring to a memorandum and attachments that were included in the meeting agenda packet, and a series of overhead displays, Water & Steam Director Dick Helgeson, Senior Engineer Ron Wilson, Project Manager Brenda Sirois, and Cathy Hamilton of Public Affairs presented an overview of the Water Supply
Staff requested that the Board deliberate the plan following the presentations.
Noting that the Water System Development Charge was implemented to mitigate or eliminate any rate impact associated with water system capacity additions, Commissioner Dyer said it was his hope that EWEB could design a scenario in which debt service is funded with System Development Charge funds. He said that if this is not presently possible, perhaps staff should consider delaying capacity additions until it is possible. Mr. Origliosso responded that the plan is divided into sizable "chunks" to which funds may be dedicated separately. He said a financing package will be developed for each individual project.
Ms. Sirois solicited questions, comments, and requests for information related to the near-term, medium-term, and long-term decisions and actions related to the Water Supply Plan.
Commissioner Dyer said that as a member of the Water Supply Plan Working Group, his questions and concerns had already been resolved.
Commissioner Bishop said she was surprised to learn that the development of deep wells is tied to EWEB's in-stream water rights. She suggested EWEB move quickly in terms of researching what it will take to develop deep wells given the assault on water rights that is currently taking place in the legislature.
Commissioner Anderson suggested that staff consider nearer-term dates to begin the conservation components of the plan. She predicted that the public will push EWEB to move forward with conservation as soon as possible.
President Smith said she thinks the "loop" needs to be closed in terms of completing the public information and involvement piece of the plan. She said this includes responding to correspondence EWEB has received concerning the plan. President Smith inquired as to whether a Board Policy might be established that requires industries of a certain demand size to develop a conservation plan. Mr. Helgeson said that such a requirement could be included in the Action Plan.
Vice President Osanka said his concern continues to be the proposed use of deep aquifers as an emergency back-up source. He said EWEB refers to the aquifers as "deep wells" rather than as deep aquifers. He said that for some members of the public, the use of the correct term, "deep aquifers," may flag the issue as an environmental concern. Vice President Osanka suggested that the issue of deep aquifers may be worthy of a separate community discussion, independent from the Water Supply Plan as a whole. He said EWEB may want to consider soliciting public input on deep aquifers as a means by which to trigger public interest. Vice President Osanka stated that the Board should determine whether deep aquifers are or are not the best emergency back-up source alternative prior to its approval of the plan. He said that if this is not feasible, the deep aquifer alternative should be deleted from the approved plan until such a determination has been made.
Mr. Helgeson clarified that the plan states only that EWEB will explore the feasibility of groundwater as an emergency back-up source.
Vice President Osanka requested technical information on Springfield's existing deep aquifers. President Smith suggested that staff provide Vice President Osanka with information concerning the CAC's discussion about the deep aquifer alternative.
Ms. Hamilton presented a brief overview EWEB's Water Supply Plan communication strategy and next steps, noting that a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for early November.
Mr. Helgeson inquired as to whether, assuming a public hearing is held in early November, the Board would support including the Water Supply Plan as an action item on a late-November Board Meeting agenda. President Smith said she would support taking action in late-November; however, she said staff must ensure that it has adequate time to consider and respond to comments made during the public hearing.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROJECT AUTHORIZATION
Referring to a memorandum and attachments that were included in the meeting agenda packet, and a series of overhead displays, copies of which were distributed to the Board, Energy Resource Project Manager Ken Beeson presented a brief overview of the elements, estimated time frame, and projected costs of Telecommunications Project Phase I. Mr. Beeson then requested authorization to proceed with construction of the Phase I core system of the project.
Mr. Beeson presented a brief overview of the Phase I construction contract between EWEB and MFS Network Technologies, Inc. He explained that MFS would act as the construction manager and all subcontracting will comply with both applicable statutes and EWEB standard contracting policies.
Mr. Beeson stated that staff would like to return to the Board in January with a detailed proposal for a pilot project. He said that assuming the Board authorizes staff to proceed with the construction of the Phase I core system, the pilot project could be in place parallel to the completion of Phase I in 1999.
Vice President Osanka said that by implementing the pilot project in 1999, EWEB will be able to test the system on a smaller group of residential users prior to expanding to a larger population during Phase II of the project. He said the 1999 pilot project will enable EWEB to identify at an early stage potential problems that would otherwise arise during Phase II.
Commissioner Anderson expressed her support for authorizing staff to proceed with the construction of Phase I.
Commissioner Bishop expressed concern regarding whether EWEB's pilot project will be limited to either new construction or existing developments. She said it was her preference that EWEB include both types of development in the pilot project.
Vice President Osanka noted that due to a proliferation of new development, the Barger area may be an area in which a pilot project could be easily applied to both existing and new development. He said EWEB could include in its pilot project an apartment building and homes adjacent to Willamette High School.
Vice President Osanka noted that the pilot project is likely to be with the 4J School District, so putting it in the Bethel neighborhood would allow EWEB to also work with the Bethel School District on that pilot project.
Mr. Beeson said staff would return to the Board with multiple pilot project alternatives.
Mr. Beeson reviewed the following Board Authorization Request and Conditions:
1. Authorization to proceed with construction of EWEB Telecom System Phase I Core System with an estimated not to exceed cost of $9.0 million absent further Board approval.
2. Authorization for execution of construction contract with MFS Network Technologies, Inc. for construction of EWEB Telecom System Phase I Core System.
3. Authorization includes the conditions as stated below and reviewed with the Board on October 6, 1998.
1. Board construction authorization is for EWEB Telecom System Phase I Core System as described to the Board on August 18 and October 6, 1998.
2. Final construction contract to be in substantially the form as described to the Board on August 18 and October 6, 1998, and is subject to final review and approval by EWEB legal counsel.
3. The EWEB Project Manager will provide the Board with regular and timely project status reports, including summaries of actual and estimated costs.
Mr. Berggren formally recommended that the Board authorize the requested expenditure of funds.
Vice President Osanka noted that the request for funding does not include funding for the pilot project. He said the exclusion of pilot project funding would prevent him from voting "yes." He said he would like to make a motion to authorize $9,600,000, to include pilot project funding.
Mr. Berggren proposed that as a condition of the Board's authorization, staff return to the Board during its first meeting in January with a pilot project proposal.
Commissioner Dyer said that although he does not support the pilot project element due to the fact that there is no guarantee if or when Phase II will be implemented, he is prepared to approve the request for authorization. Commissioner Dyer expressed appreciation for the letters of support received from various public agencies.
Commissioner Bishop said that her support of the project was contingent on the ultimate implementation of Phase II. She said she views Phase I as a means by which to generate enough revenue to pay for part of the Phase II build-out.
Vice President Osanka moved, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the Board Authorization Request and Conditions, for construction of the EWEB Telecommunications System Phase I Core System, as recommended by staff, and an additional condition that states: "The Board expects that the Project Manager will return the first meeting in January with a pilot project as part of Phase One." The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m.