Board Members present: Dorothy Anderson, Peter Bartel, Susie Smith, Patrick Lanning, and Sandra Bishop.
Others present: Randy Bergren, Deborrah Brewer, Susan Goltsman, Donald Hansen, Andrea Mason, Jerry Hohman, Greg Gardner, Debbie Lawder, Mark Oberle.
President Anderson called the Work Session of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to order.
EWEB HEADQUARTERS SITE MASTER PLAN REVIEW
Deborrah Brewer, Project Manager for the EWEB Site Master Plan, stated that she, members of the staff, and the consultants assisting with the project would present an overview of the concept of the Site Master Plan. She explained that the purpose of the meeting was to (1) receive direction from the board which option(s) for site improvements should be presented for public review; and (2) to obtain guidance on the "Proposed Public Involvement Process." Ms. Brewer proceeded to introduce the consultants: Susan Goltsman and Donald Hansen; and the MP Project Team: Andrea Mason, Greg Gardner, Debbie Lawder, Mark Oberle, and Jerry Holman
Ms. Brewer reviewed the Project Outline/Phases I - IV which outlined the time lines within the process thus far. She stated that once the consultants were on board and able to review the project, they overwhelming recommended the current site as a long-term vision based upon its adequate spacing availability and the fact that the operations could be retained with the administration branch of the organization. Ms. Brewer concluded that staff hoped to have a conceptual plan available by June so that budgeting could be prepared for the next phase of the project and implementation of some of critical compliance issues could be addressed.
Ms. Goltsman presented an overview of the goals of the project:
Ms. Goltsman explained that a series of 36 interviews were conducted throughout the divisions and the overriding desire among workers was that the organization stay together. And, she continued, in researching outside sites, it was discovered that the cost of moving the organization would total approximately $40 million, an amount she surmised would be difficult to raise. Therefore, Ms. Goltsman indicated, that the most logical resolution to meet the needs of the organization was to remain on site. She proceeded to outline what was required to successfully make that concept a reality:
Mr. Hansen reviewed the opportunities and constraints of the area, including diagrams of both the site and the river front which outlined the amenities and restrictions. He noted that the site totaled just over 23 net acres. Mr. Hansen stressed that the project was still in the planning stage and once a preferred option was selected, the divisions would be contacted once again to validate the space assumptions.
Ms. Goltsman spoke about the proposed changes that should be made to the site as she presented an overview of Schemes I - IV. She indicated that Scheme IV, Park and Greenway, was the preferred site of the Project Team. Highlights of the various schemes were outlined as follows:
Scheme I - Greenway Extension with 20.6 functional acres at a cost of approx $13 million
Scheme II - North Campus 15.2 functional acres at a cost of approx $26 million.
Scheme III - River front Development 14.3 functional acres at a cost of approx $24 million.
Scheme IV - Park and Greenway 20.26 functional acres at a cost of approx $29 million.
Ms. Goltsman commented that the consultants were very much aware of the importance of the Steam Plant structure to the community, the Board, and the staff, and that it remained intact in all the schemes.
Mr. Hansen distributed a draft of a conceptual cost summary for Scheme IV, specifically:
In response to a question from President Anderson, Mr. Hansen stated that the amount of improvements in the work yard, additional improvements in the greenway, and added public streets contributed to the increase in costs for Scheme IV.
Commissioner Smith noted that the Scheme IV preferred alternative did not include an improved or expanded riparian greenway and therefore was not representative of the Board's wishes. Mr. Hansen commented that the character would change in that there would be more native vegetation along the river front. Vice President Bartel spoke about the difficulty of achieving a balance of restoration of the riparian and the river, along with more intensive public use of the river. Mr. Hansen concurred that it would be a challenge to achieve a balance of a true riparian river front and at the same time encourage individuals to come and enjoy it. He said there were many factors to consider in achieving that balance.
Commissioner Bishop asked about the placement of the bike path, which she believed was a critical component to the site. Ms. Brewer assured Commissioner Bishop that the bike path would be on site but the placement had not be designated.
Employee Feedback
Andrea Mason, Team Member, presented an overview of the employee feedback. She highlighted the following:
Commissioner Smith suggested that staff reconcile the employee concerns by providing additional clarification of the issues involved with the project. Vice President Bartel concurred and stated that the organization needed to be sensitive to employee concerns. Commissioner Smith continued that the comments voiced by employees were astute and that the timing, cost, and public perception should be evaluated. She questioned whether the project could be considered a "progression" and phased in over time; hence, there would not be a commitment to a $24 million price tag. Commissioner Smith concluded by suggesting that staff study a 5-year needs assessment and how that would drive the project. President Anderson remarked that phasing in the project would compliment the City's overall plans for the down town area.
Further discussions ensued and additional suggestions were made by the Board. Commissioner Smith suggested that staff research grant opportunities. Vice President Bartel spoke about the high level of interest in potential properties that may become available on the east side and that staff should study those offers. Commissioner Bishop stated that there needed to be a master plan in place so that there was some predictability as to future needs. Commissioner Smith stated that she concurred with Commissioner Bishop but believed flexibility would be an integral component as well.
Ms. Brewer shared feedback she had received from the Eugene City Manager Jim Johnson. She said that the City had developed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to hire an urban designer for the Urban Renewal District. Hence, Ms. Brewer stated, Mr. Johnson requested that EWEB not take final action on its site plan until it had participated in the urban renewal process which would take approximately six months. Commissioner Smith responded to that announcement by stating it would be important for the City to understand EWEB's future goals and factor those into its conceptual plans.
Vice President Bartel emphasized that some of the drawings presented at this session were not consistent with the Board's image and that staff needed to bring these drawings more into alignment with the Board. He stressed that the impact to the river and the design of the bike path should be re-addressed. Commissioner Smith voiced her concern of the lack of stewardship with regard to the riparian area. President Anderson concurred.
Commissioner Lanning suggested that the bike path be set back further and voiced his concern regarding the cafeteria plan. He suggested that it be omitted from the design altogether and replaced with native plants and trees.
Commissioner Smith referred to the substantial difference in cost between Scheme 1 and Scheme 4, and the financial impact that must be addressed in moving this project forward. Mr. Hansen reviewed the differences between the two designs and also stated he would ensure that the budget incorporated the masonry wall to screen the substation within the schemes.
Ms. Brewer summarized that staff would re-do the drawings, re-design the bike path, and shape the timing and costs discussions to include strategies for the first five years only. Vice President Bartel stated that staff needed to further consider the effectiveness/efficiency of the operations. Commissioner Smith stated it would be critical to make provisions for replacing aging facilities. There was consensus among the Board that Schemes 2 and 3 were not feasible options and should not be further studied.
There was discussion regarding the process of the public presentations. Commissioner Smith emphasized that it would be critical to make it clear to the public the difference between what was being asked of them and what was being told to them. She added that Scheme 1 and 4 were similar but with a major price difference and the Board should be able to explain that price difference.
Commissioner Bishop asked that the design of the pedestrian underpass which went directly into the swampy area be taken out of the plan. Ms. Brewer stated that it could be removed. Commissioner Bishop also said she was opposed to holding up this project for a six-month time frame as requested by the Eugene City Manager.
There was further discussion as to what should be presented to the public. Ms. Brewer stated staff preferred to present all four schemes to the public, similar to the format used at this session. Commissioner Smith suggested that photographic images also be taken and presented to the Board and the public. Mr. Hansen said that could be arranged. In conclusion of this discussion, there was consensus by the Board to present all the options to the public.
Ms. Brewer summarized that staff would present the following to the Board for further review:
Mr. Hansen summarized that within the public presentation, information on a general phasing plan would be provided.
Commissioner Bishop complimented the consultants on the drawings they presented this evening and noted they were very helpful.
President Anderson concluded that EWEB should coordinate its planning with the City over the ensuing months as much as possible.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
_____________________________________ ______________________________________
Assistant Secretary President