Board Members present: Patrick Lanning, Ron Farmer, and Sandra Bishop. Commissioner Dorothy Anderson was excused.

Others Present: Randy Berggren, Jim Wiley, Dick Helgeson, JoAnne Andersen, Terry Bequette, Debra Smith, Deborrah Brewer, Lance Robertson, Mark Oberle, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Ruth Atcherson, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder; and Kurt Yeiter Planning Department, City of Eugene, member of the public.

President Lanning called the Regular Board Meeting of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) order at 7:40 p.m.

AGENDA CHECK

There were no changes or additions to the agenda.

APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR

MINUTES

• Minutes of the December 3, 2002, Regular Board meeting, and the December 17, 2002, Work Session and Regular Board Meeting.

BUSINESS SERVICE AGREEMENTS

• Montgomery Watson Harza - General Leaburg-Walterville Relicensing - Electric Division - $120,057
• Christenson Power - PUC Fitness Crew - Electric Division - $$273,260 for one year with option up to five years renewal
• Ondeo Nalco Chemical Company - Steam Division - $45,000 for three years

WARRANTY DEED

• Warranty Deed to Lane County for Irvington Road Widening - Right of Way Department - Facilities Services Division.

INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT

• Electric Property Management - Leaburg Canal Ingress and Egress Easement - Property Management.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

• The Energy Outlet - Energy Management Services - Customer Services Division - $90,000

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (IGA)

• Cascade Pacific Resource Conservation and Development - McKenzie Watershed Protection Program - Environmental Management - Corporate Services Division - $24,000 for five years, or $120,000

Vice President Farmer moved, with a second from Commissioner Bishop, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried unanimously.

ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS

Commissioner Bishop reported that the local television station KVAL had done a story on the application for the hydroelectric project in Fall Creek in early January. She requested an update on the project from staff.

Commissioner Bishop asked if there had been progress on the issue involving deposits for commercial accounts. General Manager Randy Berggren stated that he would e-mail information to her regarding this. President Lanning reported that the Lane Transit District (LTD) had raised the possibility of undergrounding utilities when the first phase of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is initiated along Franklin Boulevard. He related that he had been provided background materials to share with interested Board members and that he had requested more background information from the BRT Steering Committee.

Commissioner Bishop commented that this was not a new development. Mr. Berggren expressed support for the project, but added that the real issue was how to locate $500,000 to install the facilities underground.

CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Berggren reported the following:

• Background information had been provided to the Board on the status of the deposits for the general service accounts. He noted that the credit insurance that had been looked into as an alternative had not been adequate. A general review of the deposit policy would be brought before the Board at the April 1, 2003, meeting in response to the Board's desire to adjust the policy.
• A back-grounder had been distributed to Board members regarding the telecommunications bills that were being started up in the legislature. He stated that, if staff were to follow the previous Board direction, staff would fight the bills and attempt to maintain EWEB's flexibility in this. He welcomed concerns and comments from the Board to let staff know if any elements of this discussion needed to be brought before the Board.

Vice President Farmer questioned the cost of addressing this issue. Mr. Berggren explained that this was incorporated into the regular staff cost of our Legislative Lobbyist Libby Henry's position as a lobbyist, and that other issues were not being neglected as a result.

Commissioner Bishop noted that the telecommunications bills were carried over from the previous year and that they were onerous. She felt that they were due to the cable industry trying to close all options.

Continuing, Mr. Berggren reported the following:

• The Board had been provided with an update on the Wanapa project specifically regarding the transmission work.
• Three memoranda regarding the leakage issue out of the Walterville project, and updates on the Walterville and Leaburg projects had been included in the packets for the Board.
• Commissioner Anderson provided all Board members with a copy of the letter she had sent to the Northwest Power Planning Council requesting continued funding for the McKenzie Watershed Project.
• He had received a call from City Manager pro tem, Jim Carlson, regarding bill collection for the road fee. Mr. Carlson asked the Board to reconsider its decision not to include the bill for the new transportation fee in EWEB bills. Mr. Carlson suggested that the City would pay for a separate bill.

Commissioner Bishop stated that more information would be needed from the Information Technology people to determine if it could be done. Mr. Berggren responded that it was possible, but would cost the City approximately $300,000.

In response to a question from Vice President Farmer, Mr. Berggren stated that the benefit to the City was that it would save the City some expense, though not much, and that the billing process was already set up through EWEB and would be more efficient. Vice President Farmer restated his opposition to acting as a billing agent for the City. Commissioner Bishop concurred.

Mr. Berggren also reported the following:

• A memorandum had been sent to the Board regarding the Request For Proposal (RFP) that Eric Hiaasen had done on the power side for some physical hedges in order to pursue additional strategies to get longer term views and reduce costs when hedging the Bonneville Slice issues.
• He was leaving on vacation and would miss the March 4 meeting.
• The Board agenda for the February 18 meeting was comprised of an expanded discussion on the 2003 budget status, including any potential rate actions that the Board might want to pursue, during the work session, and the State of the Utility Address by President Lanning, Mr. Robertson was scheduled to give the report on the annual bench mark survey, Mr. Origliosso was slated to provide an overview of the results of the 2002 year-end audit results, and a discussion of the 2003 goals for the General Manager would be held during the regular session.

PUBLIC INPUT

There were no members of the public who wished to speak at this time.

MASTER PLAN UPDATE

Deborrah Brewer, Intergovernmental Affairs Coordinator, noted that Kurt Yeiter from the City Planning Department was present to respond to questions, should the Board have any. She provided a brief overview of the planning process in order to see how the EWEB site fits into the City's process.

Ms. Brewer explained that the question the Board needed to address was how the EWEB site was to be treated as the City goes through its plan update. She said that she had drafted an overall goal for the utility, based on direction received from the Board of Commissioners, that spoke to the utility's need to maintain the greatest flexibility in timing and land uses for future site development.

Ms. Brewer stated that the "Courthouse District Concept Plan"portion of the process had been completed and the process had moved to the next stage, at which a proposal for an amendment to the Metro Plan to change land use designations and, ultimately, the zoning within the Downtown Plan and the Courthouse area was being drafted. She related that there were some options as to how the EWEB site desired to be treated within the plan. She outlined the four options that were proposed in the memorandum entitled Update of EWEB Master Zone Change. She noted that, by law, the Planning Department had the authority to change the zoning designation, but that the department was unlikely to do so without consulting EWEB and had indicated a willingness to work with the utility.

Vice President Farmer asked for clarification on the first option, in which the site would receive the Special Area Designation. Mr. Yeiter responded that the Planning Department was trying to implement the concept that had come out of the Courthouse Area Plan. He explained that the department was in the process of "inventing a new term." He said that the idea behind it was that certain areas were required to be specified in a Master Plan, and that there would not be significant changes in the use, or a rezoning, without a Master Plan for the entire area being completed first. He noted that there had been a similar concept called Opportunity Areas that had been used in other parts of the City and they specified that the area should have a Master Plan, though made no requirement to initiate such a plan.

Commissioner Bishop asked Mr. Yeiter to define the difference between a Refinement Plan and a Master Plan. Mr. Yeiter replied that it was a matter of scale. He said that the Metropolitan Area Plan was on a broad scale and allowed each community to apply Refinement Plans, but that a Master Plan was more site specific. He anticipated that the updated Downtown Plan, which covered all of the downtown core and would now incorporate the EWEB property and the former Agripac site, would be in the form of a Refinement Plan to the Metro Plan. He explained that this type of Opportunity Area was a new designation and that EWEB could be experimental and that the name of the designation had yet to be formulated. He stated that the City staff was comfortable proceeding without any change to the underlying designations of Industrial and Park and Open space or changing the Public Land zone, but before EWEB should sell the property and should the Public Land zoning be changed, a Master Plan needed to be in place.

Ms. Brewer stated that a similar process had been engaged in 1985 prior to the construction of the building. She related that an agreement had been struck with the City that EWEB would not rezone any parcel or engage in any construction prior to formulating a Master Plan. She explained that the City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the plan, made adjustments, and then approved it and that this had facilitated the process, so that all that had to be done was to attain building permits.

Mr. Yeiter commented, regarding the fourth option, that the Board could request that the City do nothing with the EWEB property.

Vice President Farmer expressed concern that the first option, that of designating the EWEB site as a Special Area, was untested ground and that EWEB would be a "guinea pig." Mr. Yeiter responded that the plan was still being written and that the Planning Department was trying to determine how to take the concept that had been set forth in the Courthouse Plan and implement it. He asserted that the best future for the property was still unknown, but that there was agreement that EWEB should be allowed the opportunity to move off, when the time came and as much as possible, and that there should be a Master Plan. How that would be incorporated in the next plan and how it would play out in land use zoning was yet to be delineated. He explained that there would be public hearings before the Planning Commission and, then again, before the City Council after the Commission's recommendation had been forwarded to them, before anything would be adopted. He stated that, at this point, planners were only drafting and that the input from EWEB staff and the Board was welcome.

In response to a question from Vice President Farmer, Ms. Brewer said that the "down-side" of the fourth option, the option that suggested no change in the current Industrial designation, was that the Planning Commission and department could make a label for EWEB in order to facilitate their process.

Ms. Brewer stated, in response to Mr. Berggren's question, that she did not think that the Planning Commission would attempt to rezone the EWEB site because they needed a Master Plan to do so.

In response to a question from Commissioner Bishop, Mr. Yeiter stated that the planning window that this would affect would be comprised of approximately 20 years.

Commissioner Bishop asked for examples of how the Nodal Development Overlays had impacted areas and how the different plans inter-related with one another. Mr. Yeiter cited the Willakenzie and Chase Gardens area as an example of development that had proceeded without a Master Plan. He said that the area had provided a tremendous opportunity for High Density Residential development with pedestrian amenities but that 75 percent of the development had occurred without a Master Plan. This resulted in no coordination in the street system and the future commercial designation was "shoved off in one corner." He related that, through the TransPlan, the Planning Department had gotten a grant to plan for the last 25 percent of the development and, through this process, it had been determined that had the Planning Department formulated a Master Plan ten years earlier, the development would have been more thought out and the streets would have meshed better.

In response to Commissioner Bishop, Ms. Brewer clarified that the problem was that EWEB was not at the same stage that the City was with its planning.

Mr. Yeiter noted that Overlay zones are used when there was something that the base zones did not do. He explained that there was a Site Review Overlay that was applied to areas with special natural resources or a commercial property next to a High Density Residential area. He added that, in the Down Town Area, a new Broadway Overlay had just been adopted with simple design and use regulations as elements, such as the prohibition of "Drive-Through" facilities. He related that there was a Transit Oriented Overlay in the Down Town area that eliminated that parking requirement for new development and also had a requirement for more intensive development in the core of the Down Town (i.e. a greater Floor to Area Ratio - FAR).

President Lanning questioned how the fourth option, which did not change the current industrial designation, would not allow the achievement of the goal of maintaining the greatest flexibility in the land use. Ms. Brewer replied that maintaining the current land use designation would not block EWEB from achieving its goal in its Master Plan.

Mr. Yeiter stated, in response to a question from President Lanning, that the timeline for finishing the Courthouse Area project planning was such that it could be ended in July or August of 2003 or it could spread into the next calendar year. He added that it was unclear at this time whether there would be any MetroPlan diagram amendments or zoning changes slated to occur concurrently with the draft plan.

Ms. Brewer suggested that the Board authorize her to draft a letter that outlined the Board's concerns and parameters, and in it include a commitment to draft a Master Plan, and a request that the EWEB site not be given any kind of special district or label that could limit land use.

Commissioner Bishop commented that it would not be necessary to hold onto the Industrial zoning designation if the planning window was for 20 years.

Vice President Farmer remarked that it was uncertain whether the EWEB facility would move. He stated that he arrived at the fourth option by default as he felt uncertain about how an Opportunity Area or a Special Area would be defined.

Mr. Yeiter said that an Opportunity Area was defined, but that the definition could change slightly from plan to plan and that a Special Area had yet to be specifically delineated.

Mr. Berggren asked Mr. Yeiter if the City would allow the utility to proceed with the fourth option. Mr. Yeiter replied that the Eugene Planning Commission would be dictating the process. He felt that another partial option, should the Board prefer no change in the current industrial designation, was for him to highlight EWEB's preference to the Planning Commission. He thought that EWEB could make a case to the Commission and the City Council to be left alone. He noted that EWEB's property was unique and desirable and the opportunities for development were immense. He suggested, because EWEB was a government entity, that a proposal for an Inter-Governmental Agreement be written that advocated for no land to be sold or sub-divided until the Master Plan for the area had been drafted.

In response to a question from Vice President Farmer, Ms. Brewer stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission had a desire to have EWEB complete its Master Plan, tell the community what EWEB was going to do, and then participate in the planning process that was underway. She said that the reality was that no one had the staff or the funding to undertake this at this time.

Ms. Brewer reiterated the goals that EWEB had for its property, which included the protection the riparian edge and the maintenance of economic efficiency. She related that city staff had encouraged the Board to keep its goals in mind and include them in its Master Plan.

President Lanning requested Ms. Brewer to outline what she proposed to do. Ms. Brewer stated that she would write a cover letter and draft a proposal for an Inter-Governmental Agreement.

Commissioner Bishop recommended to staff that they look carefully at the property as there was some land across the street that should not be restricted. Ms. Brewer responded that there were principles that were dictated in the Courthouse Plan that she would address in her letter, such as the maintenance of access to the river.

ELECTRONIC MEDIA POLICY

Debra Smith, Telecommunications Manager, provided an overview of the Eugene Water & Electric Board Proposed Policy on Board Use of E-mail and Retention of Electronic Communications with the aid of overhead projections. She explained that this was meant to be a general guideline and that staff was comfortable with it. She felt that, should a policy on e-mail communications be drafted that was extremely specific, it would restrict the flow of communication and information between Board members.

Lance Robertson, External Communications Coordinator, stressed that the key component in the ORS statutes of what constitutes a public meeting was whether Board members were deliberating toward a decision without providing the public access.

Commissioner Bishop added that until a "decision point" was identified, Board members could discuss issues ad infinitum.

Vice President Farmer stressed that whatever guidelines that were formulated to address e-mail communications should also guide deliberation that occurred by phone or in person.

Commissioner Bishop expressed concern that Board members could communicate without a quorum and in a serial fashion via the Internet. Mr. Robertson commented that Eric Defriest's legal opinion (General Counsel) on this was untested.

Commissioner Bishop recommended that the Board craft a tentative motion, the language of which was based on points 2 and 4 from the aforementioned document provided by Ms. Smith, and that a technician manage Board e-mails. She suggested that the statute number be cited within the draft language.

Mr. Berggren commented that this created one more layer of judgment.

In response to a question from President Lanning, Ms. Hince stated that administrative staff kept copies of Board communications and that, in the case of electronically generated communications, there was a labeled file with all communications that came to her. She noted that Vice President Farmer always sent her a copy of e-mail communications for the file. She added that the discussion on the compensation for the General Manager was in a separate file.

Ms. Smith volunteered to return to the Board with a broader policy that only addressed the issue of e-mail retention.

Commissioner Bishop commented that the only way this could create a problem for the utility was if someone requested all of the records regarding an issue. This person could be legally entitled to all of the e-mails that had been sent on an issue.

Commissioner Bishop suggested that the draft language of the policy read, as follows:

It is the proposed policy of EWEB to retain copies of all relevant e-mail sent to and from Board members in accordance with record retention requirements defined in ORS ???. This information would be accessible to the public upon request and would be maintained by an EWEB information specialist.

Mr. Berggren questioned the necessity of using a staff person to maintain such a database. He felt that this was too broad.

Vice President Farmer felt that maintaining every e-mail that passes between staff and/or Board members would not be appropriate. Commissioner Bishop agreed that saved e-mails would have to be substantive.

Ms. Smith noted that former Commissioner Conte had initiated the process and that staff had returned to determine whether the Board still wanted to pursue it. She requested input on whether staff should proceed, whether the guidelines that had been presented to the Board were a starting point to the process, or whether the guidelines sufficiently addressed the issue.

Vice President Farmer commented that he had no problem attaining information from customers via e-mails, but that he did not want to use the Internet to interact with customers.

President Lanning stated that he had no desire to pursue this issue at this time.

Commissioner Bishop said that she wanted the policy narrowed down so that it only applied to communications between Board members.

Mr. Robertson noted that he was looking into a potential web page project to make EWEB more accessible to the public.

The proposed motion by Commissioner Bishop was tabled by unanimous consent.

President Lanning adjourned the meeting at 9:13 p.m.

_____________ ______________________________________

Assistant Secretary President