Board Members present: Dorothy Anderson, Peter Bartel, Susie Smith, Patrick Lanning, and Sandra Bishop.

Others Present: Randy Berggren, Joanne Andersen, Cathy Bloom, Dick Varner, Marty Douglass, Pat Ventura, Mel Damewood, Andrea Mason, Deborrah Brewer, Roseanna McArthur, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Susan Goldson, Consultant, and Ruth Atcherson, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder.

President Anderson called the Work Session of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) order at 6:25 p.m.

MASTER PLAN REVIEW

Deborrah Brewer, Governmental Affairs Coordinator, gave a brief update on the Master Plan as it currently stands. She noted that the plan is at a critical point. She was joined by Andrea Mason and Susan Goldson who, with the aid of overhead projections of the site design, gave an overview of potential changes to the plan.

Ms. Goldson explained that, in the new scheme, the footprint for the equipment yard is bigger, a road has been added around the entire facility and the warehouse has been moved to the opposite side of the yard so as to create an access point to the building. She noted that the pathway had been moved away from the edge of the property so as to create a more natural buffer between the property and the river.

Vice President Bartel commented that it appeared that the space for the parking garage had been significantly cut, but that there was still a lot of space allocated for surface parking. He said that this is not a sustainable practice, noting that it does not meet with the goals of the city. He expressed deep concern for what the design looks like. He added that he had met with the principal architect, biologist and staff of the City of Eugene on the previous day and that the preferred option that had been expressed to him was that of the EWEB facility moving to another location. He said that city staff encouraged EWEB to consolidate the footprint for the new master plan.

President Anderson asked if the planned parking structure was still sizable enough to serve more than just EWEB staff and employees. Ms. Brewer responded that the parking at this point was still an unknown quantity.

Commissioner Bishop felt that EWEB needed to look at what is operationally pertinent and what kind of impact on the adjoining neighborhood a new facility would have. Ms. Brewer stated that the design would work well from an operational standpoint.

Commissioner Lanning noted that the plan did not include the telecommunications and universal build factors. He added that, as the city is growing, other sites could possibly become available in the next 5 to 15 years.

Commissioner Smith said she had reached the conclusion that there are too many uncertainties to make commitments to the city. She encouraged staff not to make a short-term decision that gives away valuable assets. She noted that the City has acknowledged that their "urban toolbox" is currently bankrupt and stressed that a commitment with no revenue to back it up was not advisable. She also noted that re-zoning will occur and financing may not be available in the future, adding that producible financial support was key to the project. She reiterated that she was uncomfortable with a commitment to proceed with the project at this time. She expressed concern with the 50 year time frame.

Commissioner Smith encouraged the Board to decide whether the steam plant is historic and whether or not it was needed for its electricity production.

General Manager Randy Berggren stated that the time frame was a critical part of this conversation. He said that the current site could be made to work for 20 years. He noted that the reason 20 years was used in the configuration of the master plan was that it was a bonding issue, adding that staff was not saying that the site would work for 50 years.

Commissioner Smith responded that, if EWEB was vacating the property in 2021 then the project needed to be approached differently and leaving needed to be incorporated into the master plan.

President Anderson concurred with Commissioner Smith, that EWEB was uncertain of what the City could or would do.

Vice President Bartel stated that, in meeting with City Councilors Nathanson and Meisner, he and Commissioner Smith had tried to make the utility's objectives to make a working business in the courthouse neighborhood clear, but that it seemed as though the development of the neighborhood was a "parallel universe." He noted that the city process is different from the process at EWEB. He added that a building made for a 20 year life span is "schlock" and that he could not support such an expenditure.

Vice President Bartel expressed concern that the plan did not adequately address the issue of ingress and egress at the site. He noted that big trucks merging into traffic present a danger.

Commissioner Smith agreed that it would not be prudent to invest in a quality structure if a move was planned in the imminent future.

Responding to Commissioner Lanning, Ms. Mason stated that other sites were not looked into as there was a strong desire to make the present site work. Ms. Goldson noted that in the course of a discussion with all of the team representatives they expressed a unanimous preference to not split the operation over two sites.

Commissioner Bishop said that the consultants had been given clear instructions against looking into changing sites. She stated that she had no intention of raising rates to fund a move. She added that the city had not demonstrated a great success rate for redevelopment of property.

Commissioner Lanning asked staff to find out the net difference in the cost of staying versus moving and whether it would be more opportune to move in the short term or in the long term. Commissioner Smith noted that, with a shrinking industrial land inventory, moving to another property could take land from some other future use. President Anderson added that it would take employees away from the downtown area.

Ms. Brewer summarized the input, stating that staff would move forward with work on a riparian buffer and the parking issue and would research and analyze the benefits of staying at the current site or moving to a new one.

Commissioner Smith suggested that grant money may be available to apply toward the riparian edge to the property. She encouraged staff to look into the possibility of other sources of funding.

In response to a question from Commissioner Bishop, Ms. Brewer stated that $132,000 has been spent on the planning part at this point in time.

COST MANAGEMENT REVIEW

This presentation was postponed to the next Work Session due to time constraints.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

_____________________________________ ______________________________________

Assistant Secretary President