EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
EWEB BOARD ROOM
JANUARY 4, 2005
6:30 P.M.
Board Members present: Ron Farmer, Sandra Bishop, Mel Menegat, John Simpson, and Patrick Lanning.
Others present: Randy Berggren, Jim Wiley, Debra Smith, Dick Varner, Dick Helgeson, Tom Buckhouse, Marty Douglass, Ken Beeson, Terry Bequette, Mike Logan, Mark Freeman, Mel Damewood, Tom Williams, Steve Mangan, Ed Case, Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; Lloyd Heligson, Legal Counsel; and Ruth Atcherson, minutes recorder for the City of Eugene.
President Lanning convened the Regular Board Meeting of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) at 6:50 p.m.
AGENDA CHECK
General Manager Randy Berggren announced that Item (12) Water Systems Development Charge Methodology had been a placeholder on the agenda. Staff was not actually ready for it to be an agenda item, so it was deferred.
PUBLIC INPUT
President Lanning opened the Public Input portion of the meeting and outlined the rules for testimony.
Kevin Matthews spoke on behalf of the Friends of Eugene. He spoke glowingly of the recent success the Friends of Eugene, along with partner organizations, had in litigation in opposition to the City’s formation of a Hospital Zone. He called it “another victory in a line of victories” against local jurisdictions that tried to “maneuver specialized development” in locations that were not planned for that development. He related that the Friends of Eugene had more recently appealed the “rushed approval” of the Regional Transportation Plan. He alleged that it had been pushed forward without public process. He said Friends of Eugene was likely to appeal the December 30 Metropolitan Policy Committee’s “emergency” approval of the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan, which included the Patterson underpass. He felt these actions could complicate the sale of the EWEB property to the McKenzie-Willamette/Triad Medical Center (MWTMC). He opined it was premature to proceed with architecture and engineering studies for its new location.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Ratification of Board Consultants
1. Ratification of Board Consultants for 2005
a. General Counsel – Calkins & Calkins
b. Independent Auditor – PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
c. Independent Engineer – Black & Veatch
d. Consulting Engineer – Black & Veatch
e. Certified Public Accountant – PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
f. Special Counsel – Cable Huston Benedict Haagensen & Lloyd LLP
g. Bond Counsel – Nixon Peabody
h. Financial Consultant – Seattle Northwest
i. Consulting Actuaries – Clark/Bardes Consulting
Minutes
Vice President Bishop pulled the minutes from the Work Session and the Special Board Meeting held on November 16. She also pulled Item (5), Lane Council of Government for $200,000.
Commissioner Menegat, seconded by Commissioner Farmer, moved approval of the Consent Calendar with the exception of the aforementioned minutes and Item (5). The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
Vice President Bishop wished to draw attention to the $1 million grant to the McKenzie Watershed Council, which was about to run its course. She related that there was a nice article in the Currents magazine about EWEB’s grant. She called it a “responsible use of public money.” She pointed out that the grant money was used as part of the Carmen Smith relicensing, had been parlayed into more than $30 million and had been used to protect EWEB’s drinking water.
Vice President Bishop stated that she had testified before the Metropolitan Policy Committee and wished to specify that she had testified as an individual and not a commissioner. She said she was primarily concerned with the Patterson underpass project that had been included on the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) in order to place it in the queue for future funding. She expressed concern that the project was planned to cut through EWEB land that was known to be contaminated.
Mr. Berggren offered to look into the proposed Patterson project. He thought there would be a minor conflict in the City’s project and, depending on where it was located, there would have to be some excavation to mitigate contamination. He also noted there was some limited conflict with feeders out of the Willamette Substation and they had agreed to pay for it at cost. More significantly, however, he related there would be conflicts with the Steam Generation facility, as the project tried to avoid the substation. Those costs had not been addressed by anyone. He said he would bring a fairly “global” backgrounder to the Board outlining all of the different variables.
Vice President Bishop commented that she was uncertain whether the Metropolitan Policy Committee’s approval of the MTIP had been legal. She alleged that not all of the jurisdictions had realized that the Patterson underpass project had been included on the list.
Commissioner Farmer reported that he had testified in the litigation relative to the retirees’ health care benefits. He said the bottom line was that regardless of the initial ruling there would most likely be an appeal from the side that did not prevail.
President Lanning stated that the government budget proposal cut funding to Lane Community College by $19 million, after four years of previous cuts. He related that he needed to focus more time to this issue, given his position with the college. He indicated he would be requesting a leave of absence. He noted that he had been elected Vice President of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), which now met every other month, and assured the Board that he would continue to serve on LCOG.
CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Berggren reported the following:
BOARD AGENDAS
Mr. Berggren said he added a backgrounder pertaining to the discussion on the Patterson Underpass to the top of the list of backgrounders to be done. He provided an overview of the Eugene Water & Electric Board: Board Agenda Report; January 4, 2005.
Mr. Berggren reminded the Board that the first meeting in February, scheduled for February 1, was scheduled to be held at the Vida Community Center. He highlighted the agenda for that meeting.
Vice President Bishop noted that an hour had been allotted for the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC) annual report. She opined it was too long.
Commissioner Farmer asked if EWEB had advertised the meeting upriver. Public Affairs Manager Marty Douglass affirmed that there would be noticing in the community newspaper and that interested parties would be made aware of the meeting.
Mr. Berggren noted that Assistant Secretary Krista Hince was contacting Board members in order to determine when the annual Strategic Planning Retreat could be held. Vice President Bishop asked if it would be possible to have some time at the Board retreat of a “more generic nature.” She recalled that the Board used to get together in a less formal way when new Board members came on in order for Board members to become more familiar with one another. She felt the Board needed to look at how it functioned as a Board as well as to review Bylaws.
Commissioner Farmer asked that a discussion on how the Board amended meeting minutes be placed on the list of future Board agendas. He wanted to put in place a procedure for when a Board member felt there should be a great deal of revision such as going back to the tape of the meeting and obtaining a verbatim transcript of the portion of a meeting that was under question. Mr. Berggren asked if this discussion should be rolled into the planned agenda for the retreat.
Commissioner Farmer expressed concern, regarding President Lanning’s proposed leave of absence, that it could tie the utility’s hands, given that votes could now be tied with no tie-breaker. Vice President Bishop said she had been unable to pull the piece regarding legislative representation off the Consent Calendar at the meeting held on December 21. She felt the utility’s representation in the legislature bore further discussion. She opined that the utility had “gotten itself into an indefensible position” and needed to look into damage control.
Commissioner Simpson noted that the utility’s legislative representative, Libby Henry, had been scheduled to make a presentation, but it was not included on future Board agendas. He wondered when the presentation was planned to occur. Mr. Berggren agreed to check on this. Vice President Bishop asked if the light pollution issue had been sufficiently addressed or whether it needed to be kept on the list of pending issues. Mr. Berggren replied that staff was holding onto the item until it finished the related research and the subsequent policy and then it would bring the draft policy before the Board for approval.
Vice President Bishop presented an item of correspondence from Mike Van Investment Real Estate that indicated a willingness to donate 25 acres to the hospital pending annexation.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2005
Commissioner Menegat moved to elect Ron Farmer as President and Sandra Bishop as Vice President of the Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners for 2005. Outgoing President Lanning provided the second.
Vice President Bishop was “more than willing” to continue serving as Vice President and was honored to have Commissioner Farmer serve as president.
Commissioner Farmer indicated he would be happy to serve as President. He said it was important that the Board chair position rotate from commissioner to commissioner so that it would not become stagnant.
The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Krista Hince, Assistant Secretary to the Board, placed the President placard in front of newly elected President Farmer.
APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO BOARD LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS AND COMMITTEES
President Farmer reiterated that Commissioner Lanning would continue in his capacity as liaison to LCOG. Commissioner Menegat indicated he would continue being the alternate.
Vice President Bishop requested that the names of staff members be removed from the list of Board Appointments and added at the bottom as a footnote.
Commissioner Menegat stated that the Western Generation Agency was obligated to have one Commissioner representative and two staff representatives. He related there was a proposal that Energy Resource Project Manager Ken Beeson be appointed in Mr. L’Estrange’s place and that Assistant Treasurer Cathy Bloom be reappointed. He indicated his willingness to continue serving as the commissioner representative.
Vice President Bishop, seconded by Commissioner Simpson, moved to appoint Ken Beeson in the place of Jay L’Estrange as a staff representative to the Western Generation Agency. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Vice President Bishop, seconded by Commissioner Lanning, moved to reappoint Cathy Bloom as staff representative to the Western Generation Agency. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Commissioner Menegat agreed to continue as Commissioner representative to the Western Generation Agency.
Commissioner Simpson suggested that Vice President Bishop be EWEB’s representative to the Northwest Energy Coalition. Vice President Bishop recommended that Commissioner Simpson, given his continuous attendance over the past year at the Northwest Energy Coalition, be the alternate. The Board supported this appointment.
President Farmer asked who would represent EWEB at the McKenzie Watershed Council (MWC). Commissioner Menegat recommended Commissioner Simpson, noting his attendance to MWC meetings. Commissioner Simpson expressed his interest in watershed protection and emergency preparedness. The Board supported his appointment.
Vice President Bishop asked President Farmer if he would continue to serve as the alternate. President Farmer responded that he was very busy. Commissioner Simpson assured President Farmer that he would not be called upon to attend MWC meetings with rare exceptions and President Farmer agreed to be appointed as the alternate.
Commissioner Lanning indicated his willingness to continue as the Liaison to Special Districts. He said he felt he’s done an “excellent” job. The Board supported his continuation in that role.
President Farmer said he wanted to give up his position on the General Manager’s Performance Evaluation & Compensation Subcommittee. Commissioner Menegat indicated he would continue to serve on the subcommittee for another year. He asked President Farmer to make himself available to provide his historical perspective to the subcommittee if necessary.
Commissioner Simpson agreed to serve in President Farmer’s place on the subcommittee.
Vice President Bishop objected to calling it a subcommittee, given that the Board was not a committee.
Water & Steam Division Director Tom Buckhouse explained that the Board Liaison position for the Municipal Water Rights Issues was a new position and would not likely extend much beyond the upcoming legislative session.
Commissioner Menegat remarked that Vice President Bishop was often in Salem. He supported appointing her in that position, but suggested there be a Board alternate.
President Lanning moved to appoint the Board liaisons as discussed. Vice President Bishop provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Vice President Bishop suggested the Board have Mr. Berggren discuss the groups that staff members belong to in order to determine whether a Board representative should participate in other groups.
Vice President Bishop also wondered if the Board should have a liaison to the Region 2050
planning group. She noted that Mayor Kitty Piercy had discussed the formation of a committee on
sustainability. She said she would like to recommend a Commissioner as a liaison for this committee
as well. She suggested this be an item for discussion at the retreat.
PROPOSED PUBLIC PROCUREMENT RULES
Purchasing/Risk Manager Ed Case introduced Lloyd Heligson, legal counsel from Calkins & Calkins, and said he was prepared to answer any legal questions the Board might have. He said staff had followed all Board procedures for action. He said EWEB, in accordance with law, had published notice of the public hearing on the public procurement rules.
President Farmer stated that the Board had an opportunity to review the background information and asked if any Commissioners had questions.
Vice President Bishop asked what the appeal process would be. Mr. Case replied that the new laws contained dispute resolution and protest procedures and they had been addressed in several sections of the proposed rules.
Vice President Bishop asked if the procedure had changed. She asked why the Commissioners in their capacity as the local Contract Review Board would not be the appeals body. Mr. Heligson clarified that an appeal could be handled either by the General Manager or by the Board, and certain appeals might take more guidance.
Vice President Bishop asked if appeals were expected to increase. Mr. Case said he hoped not. He acknowledged, however, that the new law addressed the process in a number of places. Vice President Bishop felt uncomfortable with this change as she asserted that, should the General Manager be called upon to resolve an appeal it could create the wrong public impression. She suggested the Board approve the rules and revisit them in six months to one year.
President Farmer said, in terms of procedure, if the Board wished it could amend the proposed rules to make the Board the only appeal body.
Vice President Bishop expressed concern over the number of exemptions. While she recognized the purpose for most of the exemptions, she wondered if it would be possible to review them after six months as well. President Farmer averred that it was the Board’s prerogative to discuss issues related to a resolution any time.
Mr. Case stated that due to being in the midst of the biennium there would likely be changes to this new legislation and staff would be in the process of working through things as they arose.
President Farmer suggested it be placed on the list of pending agenda items for review one year from this meeting.
Vice President Bishop felt an exemption for large partnerships should be included, such as that with the tribal members involved with the Wanapa project. Mr. Case responded that the language that covered the purchase or sale of wholesale power and related financial transactions was broader than before and did not include competitive bidding.
In response to another question from Vice President Bishop, Mr. Case said that most the utility would negotiate a contract that a qualified rehabilitation facility would qualify for directly.
Vice President Bishop commented that because the utility was involved in an active lawsuit regarding a QRF contract it should avoid further contracts with power purchasing cooperatives. Mr. Case explained that the reference in the language was an explanation of what the utility used state contracts for.
Commissioner Menegat supported the resolution. He was concerned, however, as to how the auditors were going to view the provision that specified that the Board not act as in its capacity as a Contract Review Board.
President Farmer remarked that he had difficulty reconciling himself with the exceptions but now understood why they were needed.
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED PUBLIC PROCUREMENT RULES
President Farmer opened the public hearing.
Seeing no one who wished to speak, President Farmer closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC PROCUREMENT RULES
Commissioner Simpson moved to approve Resolution No. 0501, a resolution concerning public procurement rules. Commissioner Menegat provided the second.
Vice President Bishop moved to amend the motion to make the Eugene Water & Electric Board of Commissioners the final appeal body. Commissioner Simpson provided the second. The amendment passed, 4:1; Commissioner Menegat dissenting.
The main motion, as amended, passed unanimously, 5:0.
WEYERHAEUSER CONTRACT APPROVAL
Energy Resource Project Manager Ken Beeson referred to the memorandum entitled Weyerhaeuser Power Sales Agreement dated December 28, 2004. He said the draft resolution, Resolution No. 0502, a Eugene Water & Electric Board Resolution Approving and Authorizing New Power Sales Agreement Between the Eugene Water & Electric Board and Weyerhaeuser Company, was substantively complete, though staff was continuing to finalize the agreement. He reviewed the contract with the aid of a power point presentation. Staff sought the authority for the General Manager to execute the final agreement.
President Farmer asked if it was fair to state that there were no material changes to the agreement beyond what the Board was authorizing in the final agreement. Mr. Beeson affirmed that it was. He reiterated that the agreement was substantially complete. He reassured Commissioners that staff would return before the Board for approval of any major modifications to the agreement.
Commissioner Simpson asked if the term of the agreement had been proposed by EWEB or by Weyerhaeuser. Mr. Beeson said EWEB proposed the term of the agreement to be ended in 2011. He explained that it had been scheduled to coincide with the termination of the BPA contract. Power Resources Division Director Dick Helgeson elaborated, stating that the original contract had been for 20 years and the current contract had been for ten. He said the proposed contract was for six years.
Commissioner Simpson asked how enforceable the conservation projects were. He wondered if Weyerhaeuser would voluntarily adhere to the agreed upon schedule. Mr. Beeson responded that EWEB would require that Weyerhaeuser complete projects and pay as they went. He said EWEB would monitor their progress and to the extent they did not meet the targets, they would be required to “true-up” with the utility.
President Lanning asked what the past success had been with allowing organizations to manage such conservation projects. Mr. Beeson replied that this was the first time to have such an agreement. Mr. Helgeson added that there was carryover in that should they undertake a project larger than required, the excess could be applied to the next year. He said it was a savings against their load.
Commissioner Lanning, seconded by Commissioner Menegat, moved approval of Resolution No. 0502, a resolution authorizing the General Manager to execute the final Eugene Water & Electric Board-Weyerhaeuser power sales agreement.
Vice President Bishop said she was uncomfortable because four of the five exhibits were missing from information provided the Board. She felt the process was “not very acceptable.” She opined that it was difficult for her to do her job as a Board member without all of the pieces of the contract. Mr. Beeson explained that the agreement was substantially complete and the exhibits would be completed shortly. He stated that the effort at the present meeting was to keep the utility positioned so that the agreement could be signed when the time was right.
President Lanning thought, as a policy Board, the level of information that had been provided had been appropriate.
In response to a question from Vice President Bishop, Mr. Helgeson said Allen Frazier was the senior engineer on the project.
The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice President Bishop offered the following correction to the minutes of the Work Session
held on November 16, 2004:
Strike “President Lanning was excused” from the Board Members Present portion; Commissioner-elect Simpson was present, though he was not listed as present.
Page 6, paragraph 6: “She said a letter had been drafted which she had asked staff to withhold until she could change how a portion of it was written staff had withheld perhaps because she requested the re: line be rewritten to clearly state the purpose of the letter.”
Vice President Bishop moved to approve the minutes from the Work Session held on November 16 as amended. Commissioner Menegat provided the second. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
Vice President Bishop requested that approval of the minutes for the Special Board Meeting held on November 16 be deferred to the next meeting so that she could listen to the tape. President Farmer asked if anyone objected to deferring the November 16 Special Board Meeting minutes until the next meeting.
Mr. Berggren commented that the minutes should not wait too long. President Farmer felt the only way one could really argue as to who said what would be to have a third party transcribe it. Vice President Bishop said she had copies of the tapes and was willing to go back and listen to them. She noted that one remark she wished to check was something President Farmer had said. She believed it was not recorded accurately. She wished to check the tape for accuracy. President Farmer stated that he had no problem with making corrections, should they be necessary, but thought a third party should make the transcript. Vice President Bishop expressed concern that it would be expensive.
President Farmer suggested, and the Board agreed, that Vice President Bishop go through the minutes and call out her corrections.
Vice President Bishop offered the following corrections to the minutes of the Special Board Meeting of November 16:
Page 1, paragraph 1: “Vice President Bishop opined that not enough time had been allotted for the discussion on Item (7) Sale of the EWEB Headquarters Property to McKenzie Willamette Medical Center.
Page 2, paragraph 1: Vice President Bishop contended that Ms. Bettman did not use the word ‘subsidies.’ Tape was unintelligible, but minutes taker notes indicate the word was used.
Page 2, paragraph 2: Vice President Bishop contended that Mr. Hinkley called the hospital’s offer a “fire sale price” and not a “sale price.” The tape was unintelligible and the correction would not change the meaning.
Page 3, last paragraph: “He outlined the proposed agreement to continue negotiations
before the Board at this time.”
Page 4, paragraph 1: “He conveyed staff’s recommendation to accept the proposed contract of sale proposal to continue negotiations and provide the General Manager the authority to enact the agreement before the Board.”
Vice President Bishop requested a clarification of Commissioner Menegat’s statements captured on page 5, verbatim as follows:
Commissioner Menegat: “We’ve been talking about this particular issue for a great number of months now. We’ve spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of staff time and commissioner time getting to this point. Just in going through, we started out and there was some questions early on whether we look for a site to relocate. Well, actually, the question of operations and headquarters being together was raised and discussed just very briefly early on. The problem, er, not the problem, the situation was that we had an offer for our entire site so my understanding of how we were proceeding with this is we went out, you know, we drove around looking at sites that would accommodate both headquarters and also the operations facility. We didn’t talk about when we were going to move them or anything like that. But we proceeded and directed staff to consider that option not just an option of moving operations. We had an initial offer from McKenzie-Willamette early on and, you know, that offer was not satisfactory and we set forth, we did not accept that offer, we set forth items of major concern: that being the cost, that being the steam plant; there were just a number of items that we were not satisfied with or could not accept. Then we got together with McKenzie-Willamette, we got together with the City of Eugene and EWEB staff to try to work out, or to see if we were still able to talk about the sale of the facility. It appeared from that discussion that there were not any major stumbling points. They’re all items that we could address. There wasn’t a kill right there that would stop the process, so we continued that discussion. And, as a result of that discussion, McKenzie-Willamette has come back with an offer of $24.8 or whatever that high appraisal was. And, also the City has indicated there are subsidies or some contributions that would raise it up to about $29 million. We’ve been working with a figure of $38.5 and that started out to be, the Hoveee study said it would be about $50, we figured we had $12 million that in refunding or refinancing bonds that was available and so we’ve used the $38.5. That $50 million had, you know, 35 percent contingency and 35 percent of $50 million is $17.5 million. So if you’re looking at $29 and at $38 and there’s a $17 million contingency, I don’t know that we are so far apart that things wouldn’t go together. The thing that’s happening now, and I’m really pleased with the proposal that we move forward on this type of process because it doesn’t limit us today as to the exact provisions, amounts, and so forth, we start moving to the point where we get the attorneys involved, we do due diligence on the property which, first of all tells us whether it’s a viable site. And then we do, you know, that 30 percent contingency, that 30 percent construction cost, and then we will know within five or ten percent what it’s going to cost us to move. When we get to that point, you know, we’ve got the off ramp, if we’re dollars apart we’ve got the off ramp. I just feel that we’ve been moving along and we’ve been talking about this and talking about this and I don’t, at this point with the item before us for action, I don’t feel it appropriate to delay this issue to go back and complete our Master Plan or to do further studies as to the historical aspects. We’ve kind of moved to the point where we’ve kind of made decisions along and we’re at the point where we need to decide that we’re in a position to sell this property if the price and everything else is right or not. And it’s kind of, at this point, a yes or no and I'm prepared to make the motion for yes. That’s my comment at this point.”
Page 8, paragraph 5: Vice President Bishop questioned the accuracy of Mr. Berggren’s statements as reflected in the minutes.
Verbatim: Commissioner Menegat asks: “I just have a question about your statement about the community vote as far as financing. I’m not sure where or when that would take place or….” Mr. Berggren responds: “Under the current concept as you’ve discussed, we’ve talked about refinancing existing debt on this facility. Should we sell this property, you would retire outstanding debt that you currently have, which is today some $10 million, leaving about $12 million of existing debt service that you could use to complement the sale of this property. However, to use that fund you’ll need to re-authorize that. You have two options for creating authorization. One is an URBA process, where you can put it out and it then takes a set number of signatures to refer it to the ballot, or you can simply refer it to the ballot and let the community vote on whether or not they reauthorize that funding to complete the transaction. When I spoke to one modification in this tentative agreement of principles around the seller’s inspection period, that’s what I was suggesting, ah, that you have 240 days, if item 1, for obtaining final authorization for funds required to actually complete the relocation of your facility; which would basically say that authorization that the community would have an opportunity to consider.”
Page 8, paragraph 6: “Vice President Bishop repeated reasons for opposing the motion to enter into an initial agreement for negotiations with MW/T.”
President Farmer asked if it would be reasonable to ask for transcripts of the particular portions requested by Vice President Bishop by the next meeting. It was decided to bring the minutes before the Regular Board Meeting scheduled for December 7.
Vice President Bishop said she pulled Consent Calendar Item 5 because she felt it was premature to spend money on architectural design at this point. She recommended the Board consider whether it wanted to separate operations and administration prior to initiating any design. She asked if it could be delayed, though she acknowledged that Mr. Berggren had indicated this design work had a “shelf life.”
Commissioner Menegat said this item was a part of due diligence. He averred that the Board and staff were in process to determine what was involved in moving to that property. He felt it was important to do what the Board could while it could. He underscored that this was a preliminary study and the Board would have the opportunity to review it further.
Commissioner Lanning asked what shelf life the design work was proposed to have. Mr. Berggren replied that it would last three to five years whether the Board opted to move ahead with the purchase of the property or not.
Mr. Damewood predicted the design work could last indefinitely, depending on how it was done. He stated that it would last three to five years at the very least.
Commissioner Simpson asked if the concept of the product would presume collocation or if it would be possible to glean two numbers from the design, one for collocation and one for the assumption that only the operations arm of the utility would move. Mr. Damewood replied that the design work would help to make those sorts of determinations.
Vice President Bishop said she would not spend $55,000 just to see what the Board could do. She related that she had been receiving phone calls from people who could not afford their electric bills. She asserted that the Board should finish the Master Plan and decide whether to split the utility or not. She recommended the utility slow down on this.
President Farmer commented that the only real sense of urgency was from the agreement the utility had entered into which obligated it to conduct due diligence on the property.
Commissioner Lanning asked if staff was concerned about delaying this action. Mr. Berggren replied that the utility had initiated the agreement. He averred they were ahead of any time constraints, but he did not think the utility could take for granted the complexity of the design standards. He underscored that without this contract there was no money to pay for the work and no work to do.
Vice President Bishop asserted that there may not be any work to do. She called it an
unnecessary expense for now.
President Farmer said he wanted to be ahead of the curve. He supported taking steps to
determine how much the project would cost.
Vice President Bishop felt it was an irresponsible way to spend public money. She noted that Mr. Berggren would be providing a report at the next meeting and suggested the Board defer approval or denial of this item until then. She did not believe the utility could move unless it received a good enough price for the building.
Commissioner Lanning clarified that the decision on whether to pursue due diligence on the site under consideration had been made long before MW/T indicated it was interested in the EWEB property. He underscored that it had been known for some time that the current site would not meet the long-term needs of the utility. He noted that the Board had agreed on the need for long-term planning. He stressed that there were expenditures in long-term planning. He said it was part of the role of the Board to prepare the utility for the future. He opined that Vice President Bishop was choosing the wrong point in the process to argue this. He hoped that the very people who would argue against locating the hospital should also see that EWEB operations should not be located there. He said the Board needed to be pro-active in this case and there was no sense in waiting for another two weeks.
Commissioner Menegat, seconded by Commissioner Lanning, moved to approve Consent Calendar Item (5), a contract with WSBG Architecture & Planning, PC.
Vice President Bishop opposed the motion. She indicated she would move to postpone the item for two weeks, should the motion fail.
The motion passed, 3:2; Vice President Bishop and Commissioner Simpson voting in opposition.
President Farmer adjourned the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
_____________ ______________________________________
Assistant Secretary President