Board Members Present: Dorothy Anderson, Peter Bartel, Patrick Lanning, and Sandra Bishop.
Others present: Randy Berggren, JoAnn Andersen, Tom Buckhouse, Dick Helgeson, Jim Origliosso, Roseanna McArthur, Jim Wiley, Debra Smith, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Ron Farmer, member of the public; and Joe Sams, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder.
President Anderson called the Special Board Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
AGENDA CHECK
There were no changes to the agenda.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
General Manager Randy Berggren noted that the cost of the contract for Item Two on the consent calendar was $100,000
Vice President Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Lanning, moved to approve the items on the consent calendar. The motion passed unanimously.
ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Vice President Bartel suggested that the Board appoint an alternate member for his commission membership at the Lane Council of Governments.
Mr. Berggren said he would follow up on an alternative member to attend those meetings.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Berggren said the utility had responded to several affidavit requirements from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in the last several weeks, regarding the various kinds of trades that ENRON and others were performing as well as concerns over "wash trades". He said staff had done a thorough investigation on the inquiries and had responded in a timely way to all of the mandates for affidavits or admissions and had, in fact, denied that the utility was involved in any and all of those kinds of practices.
Mr. Berggren reported that the judge in the PERS proceedings, without explanation, had thrown EWEB's arguments out since he thought that EWEB was not an independent party from the City of Eugene. He said only the City of Eugene's comments could go forward at the current time. He said the utility had decided to not appeal that decision because it would raise broader issues that would take away from the actual case.
Mr. Berggren forwarded a letter from the Russell Creek neighborhood association regarding the Armory request and its implications to the area.
Mr. Berggren reported that turbidity levels in the McKenzie River had returned to normal since the Army Corp of Engineers had completed its work. He said staff would continue to monitor the turbidity levels for the time being.
Mr. Berggren reported that, on May 22, electric bonds had been issued totaling $11 million on a taxable base at a rate of 4.75 percent and $12 million of tax exempt bonds at an average rate of approximately 4 percent.
Regarding the June 18, 2002 meeting, Mr. Berggren said there was an Executive Session for his evaluation with formal direction and action from the Board. He noted that there would also be a presentation on the Arrow Rock Hydroelectric project.
PUBLIC INPUT
Jim Seaberry, Santa Clara, submitted written material into the record. He expressed his dislike of testifying before the Board.
Mr. Seaberry raised concern over a vote on a 2.6 percent increase on the tiered rates.
Dick Varner noted that the 2.6 percent increase was an average across all rate tiers and was a regular energy charge and surcharge.
Mr. Seaberry urged the Board to revisit the issue, hold another public hearing, and have a new vote on the matter.
AT LARGE POSITION ADVERTISING
Mr. Berggren noted that he had sent an e-mail to Board members that outlined the status of Board membership. He said advertisements had been sent out calling for applications with a deadline of June 10th, 2002.
There was general consensus for Tuesday June 11th, 2002 to decide who to interview and finalize interview questions.
In response to a comment from Commissioner Bishop regarding split votes for appointments, President Anderson stressed that deadlock voting could harm the Board's cohesiveness and called for discussion of differences to avoid that situation.
PUBLIC WORKS EXEMPTION
Ed Case, Purchasing/Risk Manager, noted that on May 7, 2002, staff had come before the Board to request consideration of a possible class exemption for all construction contracts under $20,000. He said that in order for staff to proceed they needed to follow Oregon Revised Statute requirements that called for a public hearing to take place.
Mr. Case said staff had prepared a resolution and findings with legal council and noted that an advertisement had been placed in the Journal of Commerce that provided legal notice of the intended hearing for the evening and providing an opportunity to review staff's findings. He requested that the Board consider the exemption after the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PUBLIC WORKS EXEMPTION
President Anderson opened the public hearing. Seeing no one wishing to speak, she closed the public hearing and called for Board comments/questions.
PUBLIC WORK EXEMPTION (ACTION)
Vice President Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Bishop, moved to approve the staff recommendation/prepared resolution regarding a public works exemption. The motion passed unanimously.
WATER BOND RESOLUTION
Jim Origliosso, Treasurer, distributed a draft document to the Board which outlined a supplemental bond resolution for an upcoming water revenue bond sale. He called for input as to whether the item needed to be brought back as a scheduled agenda item at a future meeting or whether it should appear as a Consent Calendar item.
Mr. Origliosso said the final amount for the issued bonds would be $10 million. He noted that the projected amount was $11 million which would have been used for well field development. He said the transaction staff wanted to put before the Board would use a portion of that $11 million, ($7 million), and $3 million from a bond authorization that had been unused since the 1960's for general capital system improvements.
In response to a question from Vice President Bartel regarding whether systems development charges could be used to recover costs to rate payers, Mr. Origliosso said systems development charges could be used if they were servicing new development since that would become an addition to the system and not increasing the capacity of the existing system.
There was general consensus to place the item on a future consent calendar.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no items removed from the consent calendar.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
_____________ ______________________________________
Assistant Secretary President