EWEB Board of Commissioners — July 8, 2025

0:04 Good evening everybody. Welcome to the July Eugene Water and Electric Board meeting. Uh I my name is John Baroski. I'm the president this year. Um we're going to start off with the agenda check. One of the things is one of our commissioners, Sonia Carlson, is going to be trying to come in remotely, but she's having some technical issues right now. So we'll get started. Uh hopefully she'll get on here shortly and we can have interaction with her. But first item is agenda check. Anybody have anything that they would like to talk about under the agenda? Yes. President Barroski. Yeah. I just want to make note that um items 8 and nine uh

0:52 which are the Bonavville discussion followed by the resolution we'll be presenting that as one agenda item combined uh since they are one is the result of the other. So just a note on the agenda. Um, and then the other thing is we did receive a an email today from uh one of the directors of the upper laminate soil and water district that we'll talk about probably in the end when we're talking about future agendas um see if we want to put that on there. So we'll go with that. Um next we will go from items from board members and general managers. Start with Tim tonight. Nothing, Andy. Um, well, I've been away for a while, but now I'm back. And, um, I had a short

1:39 marathon session of e- web meetings yesterday to get me back up to speed. So, thank you to staff for all those presentations. Okay, Todd. Um, yeah, I'd like to just comment on something that doesn't get commented on very often, but it's the condition of our fleet and our properties. I Exactly. I mean, I cannot give them enough praise about you look at the fleet, the pride that that creates by they're clean and they're well organized and, you know, and the drivers are safe, but it's just it makes you proud to be part of Eb. And same thing with the real estate they own. They're keeping it mowed. They're keeping it clean. There's no graffiti on the, you know, because, you know, that stuff bugs me and I can't find it. I'm looking for it. So, kudos to all the people and the staff that are out in the field and and doing the fleet services

2:24 and things like that because I think it reflects on all of us. And so, thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. I'll pass that on. Um, for me, nothing much except for the fact that the McKenzie wershed Council is doing a tour of the Quartz Creek restoration project this Thursday. Um, I normally would do that, but I'm unable to attend it. It starts at 8 8 in the morning, goes till about 2, I think. If you guys want to learn about that or go to that, you could probably get a hold of Susan Fricky and she could help you uh get on the list for that. It's a really worthwhile project and it's moving along this year and and next year. It'll be similar to what they did at Finn Rock Reach. Um Quartz Creek is was highly affected by the Holiday Farm

3:11 fire. So, it gets a lot of sediment and stuff in there. So, it really will help with our our drinking water uh and the turbidity that we see, especially during the winter storm. So, if anybody wants to go to that, I think Susan could probably help accommodate that. Um and then the last thing is that um one of the uh employees is celebrating uh 15 years here at Eb. Um general manager Frank Lawson is been here for 15 years. And so there's a certificate of recognition that we all signed and I think that it's uh heartfelt that we are

3:56 really appreciate the leadership that you've given to this organization over the past 15 years and we figure probably another 15 and we'll let you out of the door. So with that you didn't tell me about this. Oops. She did tell me Frank. Oh, well great. So Ann uh celebrated 15 years as well. So not that we joined the exact same day. I think I was she was one day before me or after me. So excellent. Thank you. Commissioners, anything from you? Just a um one particular item. I just want to make note that this week marks the 75th anniversary of the commissioning of our Hayden Bridgewater

4:42 treatment facility. And so, um, wanted to take the opportunity to, uh, thank staff, um, those who work at the facility. Um also thank engineering and finance um past management and past boards for their uh recognition and continued investment and caretaking of that facility uh which is uh presently our sole source of drinking water. So really wanted to recognize that event um and acknowledge that this week. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Oh great Sonia. Uh we are under items from board members and general manager. Anything to share with us?

5:29 Hi all. Sorry I can't be there this evening. Um I just uh I don't have anything to share. I just wanted to sounded like maybe Frank had given an announcement or his Yeah, Frank got uh he's been here for 15 years so we gave him a little uh certificate. Okay. Well, I I wanted to add my uh wonderful thanks to all of the work that Frank has done. I didn't know if I was too early in that. Sorry, my computer I got a new computer and also having challenges with it. Anyway, um thank you Frank for everything that you've done. You've been an excellent leader of the organization and uh it's been a pleasure working with you over the last decade of your 15 years. So,

6:16 thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. So Sonia, just on the logistics side, um we can't see a raised hand or anything like that. When it comes time for question and answers, I'll just put you in the queue. Would you like to be at the beginning or the end of the the queue of commissioners? The end would be great. All right. So, just know that when we have a questions, we'll put you in the end of the queue and and hear from you at that point. All right. Okay. I'll keep trying to work through the computer issues. Maybe I'll be able to log in. All right, great. All right, next item uh is correspondence. Uh we had three items of correspondence. The annual enterprise risk management,

7:01 lead and copper rules, and the state legislative updates. Any questions or comments? Um just just commissioners, these were all just a little bit of context and introduction. Uh these were allformational items. they have different purposes. Um the enterprise risk management is something we do uh on a periodic and regular basis to look at uh different risks across the utility. Many of those you're familiar with because they're part of uh what we're working on actively uh in particular things like secession planning, building bench strength, uh looking um at um some business impact analysis for different parts of the organization. Uh the lead

7:47 and copper rule is uh an update based on the ever evolving uh federal standards associated with uh delivery of drinking water. um our system is in great shape um relative to this particular uh standard um but it's something that we continue to assess and are diligent with. And then the final one uh has to do with the legislative update. Um as you know the regular session of the the Oregon legislature just recently um closed their session. There's some talk about whether there's some special sessions uh potentially on the docket. Um Jason is actually um not available this evening um because of an emerging

8:32 family issue. Um uh but I would also note that in September he's actually scheduled uh to be in front of the board with not only a recap of this last session but also a look forward uh for what might be emerging um over the short session for next year. So um um I'd be happy to entertain any questions or comments from commissioners. Um, but this is really uh background information uh for your enjoyable reading. Great. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Um, I just was I was uh encouraged by the the lead and copper. Um, I think that we're lucky as a system to be uh at an age of system where that

9:17 wasn't quite as as prevalent as it was back in in some other states and municipalities. So, it was encouraging to see that we're way above where we need to be as far as federal guidelines. And so, I was encouraged by that. Sonia, anything for you? No, I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Frank, did you have anything else? I I was just going to mention the on the lead and copper side that if you look back in the archives, um Ew Webb started doing assessments uh around these issues um decades and decades ago. I guess I'll guess I'll say um way before any of the issues that you heard about relative to PH and and Flint, Michigan and some of the some of the other newsworthy um

10:03 issues that you've heard about uh the forethought and the the leadership that the board and management showed again decades ago is uh part of the reason why we are at where we are today. Great. Thank you. All right, with nothing else from the commission, um we'll move on to public input. So, public input, you'll see there's instructions up there. If you can read those, um I'm going to read a little bit here. If it's not up there, welcome to the public input section session for this meeting. Eweb is a public nonfor-profit organization whose charter is to deliver drinking water and

10:48 electricity to our community. Although this is a forum, it is not used for an open back and forth dialogue. Commissioners and staff value hearings from a diverse perspective and res receiving community input. Speakers are asked to keep their testimony relevant to e webb business and request that everyone share their comments in a productive and respectful manner. Should a speaker or audience member become disruptive, they may be muted and removed from the meeting. Um, do we have any callers? Okay, so we have no callers. We have looks like two people in person. Um, so we'll go with those. I am going to open the public input session now

11:34 and we will start with Eric and then Rachel is after. Oh, it's on the floor. Sorry. Good evening. Good evening, board members and staff. Uh, Eric Jurro, Ward Six. Two items this evening. Item number one in the matter of Cascadia Wildlands versus Hew Webb. Um given the recent news articles concerning the lawsuit and the oral arguments in federal court last Monday, which I attended, and I know what you're

12:20 thinking, what this guy needs to get a life. Um uh I have a couple of comments. Um this, uh first of all, uh this case exemplifies why law firms make so much money given all the competing interests at play. Um during oral arguments the judge said repeatedly this is a complicated case unquote. Um this complexity complexity I believe creates uncertainty and that should be caused for concern on those uh for those on both sides of the issue. I understand that the commissioners and e webb staff are constrained as a matter of prudence not to speak publicly in any detail about legal arguments. Understood. I would simply ask that the board and staff remain vigilant as you n navigate your way through this issue. Um it is my

13:06 hope that the case can be resolved without too much expense to the rateayers and provides timely and reasonable protection for the endangered speci species involved. Item number two resolution 2515 uh which you have before you this evening. I followed the process the EW Webb staff and board have engaged in uh to reach this point uh which is a big milestone for for EW Webb and for the board and so forth. The process was necessarily complex and thorough and I appreciate the concerns raised by the board on behalf of rateayers. I'm guessing the resolution will be approved. As a citizen and rateayer, I don't feel qualified to be able to say whether I think you should approve this resolution, but I do believe you have

13:52 provided ample justification for doing so. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I've got Rachel Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity. Um, I'm here speaking tonight in regards to the smart meter that was placed on my home over a year ago without per without my permission while I was not home and then the up uh potential upcoming fees that are to be imposed uh to have them manually read each month. Uh, I know

14:39 that you all have heard multiple testimonies about the negative effects of dirty electricity and the EMFs. Um, the harmful effects that they have on the biological processes of the human body. Um, I'm sure that if you uh would take the time to look at the scientific evidence that is building and building um then maybe you would hopefully understand why citizens are concerned and there's a growing concern for um them to be on our home. As a as a citizen of Eugene, um I'm disheartened to have experienced personal difficulties with sleep and

15:24 breathing since uh the smart meter has been installed on my home. I do have the signal turned off. However, the dirty electricity is still there. Um I'm not going to try and give more evidence and facts. I know you've been already told lots of those things. Uh, I've been told over and over that e webb does not care. Um, I'm wasting my time coming to these meetings. Um, that you're only concerned with technology progress and money. Um, however, because I do have the privilege to speak to you face to face and look you in the eye, I'm hoping that you will take some time to reconsider that there are people with legitimate claims that these do affect

16:10 our bodies. And so I'm asking you to reconsider number one that you would give people of Eugene a choice to have an analog meter on their home so we would not be exposed to radiation and dirty electricity. It's a very small percentage of the Eugene population that would request that. And I'm also asking that you would please not impose fees um for having uh personnel come out to manually read our meters. I personally have uh a a neighbor who is disabled. We share the same basically home. Um and so there's two meters on my home and he would

16:55 probably not be able to afford the fee. I am in a single income family with four children. That would be very difficult for us to afford the fee. So, please consider things like this when you um are wanting to impose this feed. And I'm asking that you would choose to give us people like me choice. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Nobody else. Okay. With that, I will post the public input and ask commissioners if they have any questions or comments at this point. No, no, no. Sonia,

17:45 nothing for me. Thanks. Hey, thank you all for coming. I appreciate that the uh input. we do hear you and uh as as you mentioned we can't comment on litigation but we are tracking it so thank you for that and hopefully those lawyers won't retire on our dime. Okay, next up is the uh consent calendars. Item number five, approval of consent calendar A. Move to move to adopt consent calendar A. Second. Any questions or comments?

18:32 Seeing none, I will call for a vote. All in favor of consent calendar A say I. I. Opposed. Looks like it's unanimous. All right. Next is approval of consent calendar B. And I can pull item seven. Okay. Is there a motion to approve it? Okay. Is there a second? Okay. Uh I can't remember. Do we do item seven? No. We You got a motion. Yeah. So all in favor of the consent

19:17 calendar B minus item seven say I. I. Sonia. I said I. Thank you. Okay. Uh item number seven, Mr. Brown. So, this contract is one that comes up every five years. And and for those of you who don't know, this is when government agencies produce a service that's that that um people with development disadvantage and others can provide. It's a no bid contract. They just tell us what it's going to cost and we have to pay. Um I you know, when we did this back at at the building on 500 East, we were buying them golf carts because they couldn't walk between Midgley and the main building. We were buying the brooms to do the jobs. I mean, it was that the cost was

20:02 egregious. And I look at the cost now, $2.3 million. And and I went and got the cost of the largest class A office building in Eugene, including trash, is $141 cents a year, which is 12 cents a square foot. If you take 2.3 million divided by.12, that's 353,000 square feet. So that's how many square feet we should be cleaning for this amount of money competitively. We're not cleaning a third of that. And um somebody has in my opinion has to be an advocate for the rateayer and turn around and say let's do this in house. I mean 4J does it in house. Do you does it in house? Um and I don't want personally want to wait another five years because I know the workers aren't getting this money. The last time I barked about this they were being driven down in a

20:48 suburban from Sweet Home to do this job. And uh and it's it's I know it's a state law that we and it's not bad. They just tell us what it's going to cost and that's it. And DAS says okay and I don't think that's fair to the rate payers not to give some consideration the moving this in-house. the city got an exemption for security at the HUT center because they didn't like the service and they got they they didn't have to use the pre provider and I I would personally like to see if if there if there's any way we can push back on this and give it for just a year or whatever because that's a ton of money and every time we're doing one of these little ones, what do you say? 7.8 billion dollars we're dealing with tonight. That's a lot of money. And if we can save a million bucks, I'd like to save a million bucks. If we can save a thousand

21:33 dollars, I'd like to save it. But I just don't want a company to get enriched off of of this law. Yes. Yeah. I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Brown. Um, one thing that I I'm not sure and I'll lean into uh Deborah Hart on this one. Um, two two kind of questions. One is the timing of this con this this procurement this month versus next month and it how how critical is that? And then also, and this this may be a question for pro for our purchasing staff relative to um the ability to adjust midcontract and um um to evaluate um an in-house option or an exemption op option. Uh Commissioner

22:18 Brown, we have had discussions about u potentially moving this inhouse. um likely not within the time frame of this initial part of the procurement, but but I was curious from um either Deborah Hart or Quinton uh who's our purchasing supervisor whether there is some option to um to modify Midstream. Hi Frank, this is uh this is Quenton. Um, yes, there is always the possibility that we could do modifications with that contract working with DAZ. Um, obviously, and one of the other things that you were asking too is, you know, if we move this in-house, would that be an option? That would absolutely be an option. We know would not be required to use that service if we had staff that

23:03 provided this service for us. Commissioner, we'll we'll take a look. Um, under what time frame, uh, Deborah, do you think we could do an assessment of internal costs versus external costs? Challenging thing is how much time we would need should we decide to go internally to implement that U program. I can Karen, can you comment on whether or not this needs to be approved this month? have that answer. I wonder if Scottich might have an answer on that. I don't know.

23:53 I'm I'm not hearing expeditious answers. What what I would recommend to the board is a conditional approval for one year. it would likely take us some number of months to um if we were to decide tomorrow that it made sense to go internally, it's going to take some ramp up time. So um a conditional approval of this contract um for one year um and if it looks like there's um the reason to continue it, we can we can work with staff to continue it. Um does does that cause any procurement problems, Quinton? No, that should not cause any problems and that should be plenty of time. Does that seem like a fair response to you, Commissioner? Yeah. And I want to make sure that this

24:38 isn't my voice. I'd like to hear from other commissioners because my goal is to, you know, keep it local, save some money, and still get the same quality and service we're getting and not have to pay this big over burden. And just to clarify, our commitment is to take a look at it and and see because there's there are other potential costs involved and we just want to make sure we come back to the to the board with an appropriate comparison and assessment. Yeah. Um for me, I I asked a question too in the pre meetings. I I just needed to know know more information about the program because again to me it seemed like it was a uh a substantial amount of money uh for for the the service that

25:23 we're getting and and I just wanted to know more questions about it. So my understanding is that if we from what I read on the thing if we wanted to outsource it we have to use this this service. That's correct. But if we bring it inhouse, that takes that requirement away. That's correct. Now for me again bringing in in house has has a bunch of different uh connotations you know that that's probably I don't know what um bargaining unit that that type of service would fall under you know and who who is involved with that but I would I would assume that it's probably IBW the people like that do facilities so

26:11 all of those things would be information that would be great to have and I think a year is is an appropriate time for us to look at this and come back with it. So, I'm in favor of it and doing the due diligence on it. Mindy, yeah, I also support just learning more about it. We're not we're not voting on getting rid of it entirely, but voting for a one-year contract and getting more information, I think, is per perfectly reasonable. And Commissioner Morris, yeah, I'll just add my voice of support. I think um learning more about it and also knowing if we would lose any type of um historical knowledge or other issues with going with an in-house service and that there are challenges to to navigate that but there's also a lot of benefits as well. So I appreciate you

26:57 bringing this forward commissioner Brown. I am in support and um commissioners we'll we'll take a look at this and try to give you a full full picture of not just the financial piece but the the the social pieces um as as well as just the impact on potential opportunity costs and other things. We'll we'll look at this holistically um financial financially will be part of it. So, the last question that Oh, Sonia, do you have any input on this? I I was just curious. This is the program that employs um people with disabilities and correct is isn't that what Garton does? Yes. Yes.

27:43 Okay. So, they um so sometimes they also have the the additional cost of they have somebody that works alongside um the the other person too. Anyway, um I'm in support of looking at it for a year and then having staff internally look at the feasibility of um taking the service inhouse. Thanks. Yeah, I think that for me again also you talked about the social the social part about this and and and by no means are we are we saying that the service that that this provider gives to us are is substandard or that the people who are doing it are are not doing a good job. We just need to look at kind of where where our dollars go. Um the question

28:29 that I would have on the motion then is it was a five-year contract. I'm sure that this was a 5-year contract that kind of had escalations. So, do we have to have the exact dollar amount to approve this or can we just say a one-year contract? Just just say a provisional approval of this contract for a period of one year. Okay. All right. Uh would somebody like to make that motion? I'll move that consent calendar item B7 be amended to for a period of one year. All in favor say I. I. All right. Thank you, President Baroski. So, you approved the

29:14 motion to amend it. You didn't actually approve it. So, you have to go through one round. Absolutely. Actually approved the amend the the item as amended. Can I get a motion to approve the item as amended? Usually I'm good at pro to approve item B7 as amended. All in favor? I I usually I'm pretty good at parliamentary things, but I missed that one. Sorry about that. Past engineering role comes to light all of a sudden. Okay, so consent calendar is taken care of. We're going to move on to item 8 and nine, which is uh the BPA product final recommendations

30:00 and resolution. And also, commissioners, make sure to hit your green button when you're talking. President Barovski, commissioners, uh good evening. Just want to um highlight for the record uh my name is Frank

30:45 Lawson. Uh the general manager joining me up here is Deborah Hart who's the assistant general manager and chief financial officer and Brian Booth who's our chief energy resources officer. The presentation this evening um is uh relatively short. um it is not short because of the particular uh dollar impact or long-term impact of what will eventually become resolution 2515 that will put forth for your approval. Um but because we've spent um a number of hours together um over the last several years uh discussing the the details um of our agreement and go

31:32 forward contract with the Bonavville Power Administration. We'll hit just a couple of the highlights um including a little bit about that process and what the process looks like going forward. um give you a little bit of preview uh with some of the go forward actions. Um this is one decision relative to a product offering that um is part of many decisions relative to our uh electric generating resources and then we will eventually uh put forth a recommended motion for approval of the resolution. This doesn't go back very far. This is uh just a quick look back um over the last couple of months. Uh like I said, if you really look back at the history,

32:19 um it started probably three or four years ago. Uh intensified about two years ago and we've probably had at least 20 public more 20 public meetings uh with this body on subjects that imp impact this this contract. Um once the resolution is passed, there's a number of particular items coming up. uh between now and the end of the year uh relative to staff work, Bonavville work, and also uh some additional decisions that um Brian will mention a little bit later when we're talking about uh other actions. Just a a quick recap as to uh where we have landed. Um there were four uh uh choices as far as product offerings from

33:05 the Bonavville Power Administration. Uh we uh initially started with an in-depth review of all four. Uh looking at their pros and cons. Um we narrowed it down to really two choices that we fought we we felt best fit uh with e webb. Uh none of the choices were bad choices. Uh so we're very fortunate in the Northwest to have access uh to a federal resource of this type and um eventually uh um had to evaluate u some choices between the two best options we felt which were load following and also block was shaping. Um we landed uh originally um uh back um in April with a slight

33:51 leaning toward load following. Um but as we took a deeper dive and I really want to uh commend um staff for uh taking a look at the the practical impacts of the contract work as it's evolved. uh some of the work associated with rate determinance. Uh there there's a lot of details in the boilerplate um of the contract, but really took a deeper dive in particular into the operational impacts on the organization and how it matched with our strategy and eventually landed on um the conclusion or the recommendation to this this body that we feel like the block was shaping uh

34:36 product from Bonavville uh along with subscribing to what's called a winter peaking service um maximizes um our leverage into the federal resource which is at cost, the at cost portion of the federal resource while also providing us the operational flexibility and the ability to work with our customers um on balancing supply and demand um alignment with our strategy um and local control which I know that both customers and this board have significant interest in maintaining. ing um I'd summarize it by saying block with shaping um on one hand leverages the federal system at cost and on the other

35:23 hand uh balances that with our ability uh to work with customers uh locally maintain local control. So this is uh from our perspective um provides an excellent base of resource but also aligns with much of the strategic work that this this board has been a part of around looking at demand response, looking at time of use, looking at at trying to align um that um as well as uh starting to really facilitate um and taking a more aggressive stance with economic development. for example, electrification, distributed generation, and system optimization, which um I know that this board as well as our community

36:08 is interested in. And so by taking a deeper dive, having individual conversations with commissioners as well as members of the community, both some of our key accounts as well as just uh general outreach through our um um um communications team. Um we refined our initial leaning um which was a very slight leaning by the way um into u the what we felt was a better fit with block shaping based um on the work session um that we had. There were a couple questions about uh just the the contract itself. Um there's there's a little bit of detail and there was some detail provided in the backgrounder. Um and we have used

36:54 the term negotiate and there was some questions about well what does negotiate uh really mean? If you look at just the formal definition of negotiate it's it's to engage in formal discussions to come to an agreement. Um in this case uh there are standardized contract templates um and um some of the discussions with Bonavville will be around the specifics of our uh our generation and our load and how does that um get captured most effectively in the in the standardized templates. Um, and so it's really a I would classify it as a tailoring of the contract specific u for e webb and there there will be some staff work and bonavville staff work to complete that.

37:47 As far as the go forward um execution process um and timeline for the contract, uh one thing I wanted to note uh was that um if you look back um and I know that the discussions came up relative to um how much can you really negotiate with the federal government um this process started back um in the 2016 to 2019 time frame. Um there were a number of pieces of outreach that EW Webb participated with as far as as customer surveys, uh working groups. There was an original there was a con um some some um concept papers back in 2021 2022. This

38:32 has been u a negotiation between Eb, some large Bonavville customers, a number of different trade organizations. So we have been negotiating um throughout the last uh five years to get the contract boilerplate uh to where it is. The resolution this this evening will be to um authorize uh the organization through the general manager to really to complete that process. Um um and within the the guidance provided which is primarily around the product selection um associated with block width shaping and the the peaking service and

39:18 authorize the continue of that. Um we will we'll take that resolution. We'll inform Bonavville um by our deadline of July 18th. This is our product selection. And then EW Webb and Bonavville staff will engage in this tailoring or populating of the of the template uh for anticipated execution before the end of the year. This is um part of a larger building block. Um, and so I'm going to turn it over to to Brian to just give you a very quick um insight into uh what is coming in August. Um, so a very quick followup into other items associated with our

40:03 resource supply. Brian, just take a couple minutes and then you can pass back. Yeah, thank you, Frank. Uh, so as you may recall from the uh the 2023 IRP, at the very back of that very hefty document was a a short action plan. This was a couple pages, less than 10 items, but each one of these single paragraph items uh was a boatload of work, for lack of a better term. There was significant modeling upgrades. There was our demand side potential assessment. All of the things that we've been working on to get us to where we are today for the 2025 action plan. We're imagining a continuation of some of those, but also a change of pace to get from, you know, where we have been.

40:49 We've been deciding what game we're going to play for the past several years, and now that we are getting to the point of deciding, well, now we can actually implement a strategy and go out and play it. I I can't tell you how excited I am to be able to do this. Um, couple of highlights to look forward to in this. uh we have you know we have completed this demand side potential assessment which you've heard about in the action plan. We're going to uh we will commit ourselves to uh developing and implementing a demand side management plan that includes conservation demand response rates. We will commit ourselves to developing a supply side resource acquisition strategy to complement the supply the

41:35 demand side strategy. Um so when I had applied for this job, Frank, id written you in my cover letter, which Frank remembers by the way, um about this vision of a a scrappy power supply strategy, relying on our customers, uh bringing together all these different resources to deploy a a symphony of power supply to be able to keep the lights on at the most cost-effective way possible for our customers. This is it. I'm just thrilled. So, thank you. With that, I'll I'll pass it back over to Frank. Scrappy wasn't the word I remembered. I remembered symphony, not scrappy. Um,

42:23 commissioners, just a just a final thought. Um, I did want to um I'm I'm assuming that you're going to approve the resolution. And I know that's a that's always a big assumption, but I I wanted to just um thank you for the the many opportunities to provide guidance along this journey because it has been a journey. Um as much as it feels like an end, it's really the beginning um of the the next phase of the organization. Um I also wanted to thank staff um primarily in in the power group, the energy division and also the finance division but also the customer division and operations who are looking at the the various impacts of the resource that we select um on how we

43:09 deliver it. Um so I want to thank you for that. I I also wanted to just make a note that we went went through a lot of this discussion. So, anybody listening in into the public, this has been really a pretty quick presentation on what is likely a two and a half to three billion dollar uh decision over the next 20 years. Um, we had a work session. Uh, we had a number of work sessions before that and so we we answered a number of questions in that work session. I will I will also note that while Commiss Commissioner Schlober was not in the work session, uh we spent quite a bit of time with her individually uh to go through many of those issues as well.

43:54 And so, um wanted to acknowledge and thank her for the time to do that. So, um, we'd be, uh, happy to open it up for any final thoughts or questions that commissioners might have and then put forth the um, the very weighty yet um, u concise to the point uh, um, motion relative to resolution 2515. President Barroski. Thank you. I will open it up for questions or comments. Tim. Yeah. Thank you, chair, and thank you uh for this um

44:39 Mississippian amount of work, the the incredible amount of of effort put into it and the hours uh that you and your team have have put into it. It's very clear of all the scenario building, all of the what ifing and and all of the challenges that that came forward. So, I just want to say thank you for that. um and that this has been a multi-year process of doing that. So, thank you for sticking with it and and being on top of it. I have no questions. I just have comments of that I'm in full support of this decision. I think that this is a very clear um uh representation of our our mission, our vision and our values of of flexibility while also being uh acknowledging affordability and trying to to work with that and working with um

45:28 you know the powers that be while also maintaining our local um control. We get to continue to be job creators. we get to continue to engage with our community directly. I think that this is just such a such a good and incredible conclusion to um such a a huge amount of work. So, I just want to say thank you um for for your efforts and um I hope that there's champagne in the back for everyone uh when when we're finished tonight. Thank you. Yes, Mindy. Well, ditto to what all Tim has said and also um I've said this to you, Frank, but I really appreciate the change in the leaning, not because uh of

46:14 necessarily what it um anyway, I appreciate the change in the leaning because it really shows a commitment to diving deep into looking at the specifics and really thinking about what this decision means, not just in terms of finances, but in terms of the culture. of the organization of our community values and um I know that sometimes it might not that be that easy to pivot a little bit. So I just really um admire and I'm grateful to the staff for doing that and it just shows um your integrity. So thank you for that. Yeah, I echo all those comments and and mine. Um, Ryan, it's very refreshing to have somebody in your leadership position to have such enthusiasm and for

47:00 something because I know that's going to carry through everybody that's going to be that's been involved that's going to be involved. And kudos to you and to to Deborah and everybody else involved here because when you when you buy in, the team buys in and the team buys in, we all benefit from it. So, thank you very much. Your enthusiasm is really really well received and thank you for doing that. Now, um, are you saying that I'm not enthusiastic, Commissioner Brown? Is that Is this like a relative 15 years? Come on. Go to the younger. No. To everybody involved, that took much time. Thank you, Sonia. It's amazing that we've gotten this far. I It seems like we started with the IRP

47:45 discussion, you know, to answer this question so many years ago. So, I'm really thrilled to have a conclusion. Um, I feel really good about the due diligence that's been done by staff and and all of the work that you've done to help us understand and feel comfortable with this decision because it is a very large decision that we get to live with for, you know, as a community for 25 years. And so, you know, I I do think that we've done all of the the good work needed to ask the right questions. and I applaud staff and all those involved in the process. So, thank you everyone. Thank you. Um, so I have a couple questions.

48:31 Um, first off, with with this type of product, are we still able to sell excess Bonavville power on the open market? I know. So, um I I think I want to qualify that commissioner um by saying there's um part of what we looked at was the recognition that there is is a constant balancing of supply and demand that we we have to maintain. And so yes, we we are in a position where we would at times sell surplus and at times acquire deficit. So that is part of the management. So the the answer is yes. Um, great. You know,

49:16 that's fine. Our goal, by the way, and this is a little bit where it's not so much business as usual because of our past Bonavville product, it tended to create more surplus. So, um, it it tended to push us toward a business model of of acquiring resource and selling off the surplus. Um what now we're really looking for is um to synchronize and balance those as closely as possible so that and not just intentionally chase surplus. Okay. Um second question I have is are all the utilities going through this at the same time or is it I mean does different different utilities signing

50:01 the contract? They're all there. Yeah. All the utilities in the Northwest are going through this at the same time. Um roughly 140ish utilities. Some of those are represented by organizations. Uh there's a number of load following for example, which is the majority by quantity, but those are there's a lot of small utilities that don't have the capability or the interest from the from the and participation from the public side that we do. And so um um the answer to that is yes. They all started in 2011. They're all expiring in the same time. So we get to enjoy this um with our teammates. Okay. Um and then this probably goes to Brian.

50:46 Um, in one of the earlier presentations that we had back either late last year or early this year, you kind of alluded to the fact that you were kind of surprised with the the product that was being offered to us. Um, is that enthusiasm and and surprise or not surprised but enthusiasm still there for this this product? It is. So, mentally going back in time, I I think the thing that had me most excited at the at that moment and still holds true today is the amount of freedom that comes with this product. Under slice block, there are contractual handcuffs. But I to put it lightly, uh

51:33 we have to deliver a certain amount of slice block to load. We have very strict tests to do that and very substantial penalties if we were to miss that test. Um, with this block of shaping product, we have total freedom. We can market that. We can take it to load. We could make ourselves, you know, deliberately short in the middle of the day to buy cheap solar and then save our Bonavville product for the evening when we have more of a need or high market prices. We have freedom in this product that we have not had in the past and that is very exciting. Okay. So then my last question is to Brian as well. Four months ago you were load following.

52:20 Two months ago you're block shaping. This is your last chance. Where are you today? Yeah, I am blocked with shaping today. Okay, that's that's what I wanted to hear. Um and with that I don't have any other questions. Any other commissioners have anything else at this point then I think we can move on to the second part which is uh item number nine which is up on this the board there. I would entertain a motion to approve resolution number 2515. I move to approve resolution 2515.

53:06 Is there a second? Second. And any discussion? Sonia will start with you. Any discussion? No discussion from me. Just vote yes. Oh yes. Okay. Any other discussion? How much? Pardon? How much? 20 billion. No, seven billion. But the value of this Yeah. So I think it's probably somewhere between two and a half and three billion over the over the course of the contract. Okay. You don't that doesn't mean you have to discuss it any further though. But I just I just want to know what I'm raising my hand to and let the let the

53:52 uh viewing audience know that we're we take this very seriously and we've we appreciate the hard work that's been done, but it is one of the the big, you know, we every every month we have the biggest decision we've ever made as a as a board. You know, it was Leeberg and then it was the IRP and now it's this. Stop bringing big things to us. Bring us something like, "Do you want popcorn on Saturdays?" All in favor? I All right. Unanimous. Thank you all for all your commissioners. We are scheduled for a break.

54:39 Oh, no. Long-term financial Deborah gets to stay up there. Thanks, Br. You said we kept bringing you bigger things. Well, there you go. I I hate to go to the smaller side. Um um but we're about ready to talk about 10 years worth of u financial forecasting and and rate impacts. Um and so I'll I'll kick this off. Um I I wanted to preface this one. We um when we um the the last presentation was relatively short given the magnitude of the of the topic um based on the fact that we had had um many work sessions and regular um board meetings with commissioners. Um this one is also

55:26 relatively short and the reason that this one is is so short and I think this is feedback that we've received in the past from commissioners. there was a lot of detail in the background uh memo relative to the financials and the impacts and what we're uh spending uh or proposing to invest in. And so wanted to uh in particular uh thank the the financial teams and those working on capital and operations um for the amount of information that they packed in a relatively um concise memo. uh we'll talk and rem talk a little bit about the process and where this fits um and the impacts. We'll kind of get right to the point around the impacts to um our

56:13 revenue requirement which really drives the rate trajectory and then uh open it up for as much discussion as possible uh with commissioners. Um this is um an annual right of passage as many of you know and have participated in. Um, and I know even our uh newest uh commissioner um Commissioner Morris um was u part of this uh observing this process last year given that um um he was the commissioner elect um by the time we started into this annual process of looking at our capital um evaluating our financial assumptions uh looking at our budgets and forecasts um and eventually coming

56:58 out with with draft budgets and uh rate plans and rate hearings uh late in the year. to jump right to the point. Um in in this um in this case um we are um really trying to summarize uh a water impact and a and electric impact um relative to our our forward thinking um relative to some of the things we have both included and excluded some of the major key points. Um I will mention that the the Wamtt treatment plant um is not included in these numbers and part of the reason for that is that um a project of that

57:44 magnitude uh we're going to have a separate discussion on that this fall and we also uh recognize that it it would dwarf other conversations if you start to look at the financial impacts of it. Um the the equivalent on the electric side is a storm event ruins your uh ruins your uh reliability numbers because of um how much impact a single outage event can have. Uh we wanted to be able to have the that discussion intentionally um and look at the remainder also intentionally. Um eventually those all get um consolidated and integrated. Um we also wanted to make note uh commissioners that this um includes the sunset of the water rec

58:30 water watershed recovery fee uh which is scheduled to sunset next uh at the end of next June. Um feel like generally the scope of that uh specific fee around recovery um will have been accomplished and watershed protection is uh is different. And so if um uh commissioners wanted to expand watershed protection, that would be under a rate scenario and not a separate fee scenario. Um some of the other items are just just worth noting here relative to the inflationary impacts. We're seeing that across both the electric and the water utility. Um and also recognizing that some projects move around uh a little bit depending on uh in the case of uh work under streets.

59:17 Um depending on the the schedule of the city of Eugene um we often have to be flexible with with our timing. What we've noted here um at the bottom is that um uh the revenue requirement or basically the average rate impacts um we're presenting those for water and electric in in really two ways. One is um an unmititigated methodology which is the top line and then um our um targeted savings to accomplish what we think is the bottom line which is to be much more consistent with the guidance that you've provided in the past relative to rate increases being uh um close to or near a level of inflation and not um

1:00:03 extraordinarily uh beyond that. Um in this case we do have uh some challenges in the near-term 2027 28 and 28 uh but have identified u the amount of savings we need to make decisions on in order to accomplish that. Um if you look at the electric side um we have um some similarities around um inflation. Uh we also noticed that the Leeberg decommissioning is included. Um the um um the Bonavville contract will will have its its its own impact that's going to be uh regardless of the of the product choice. Um and um

1:00:48 we're still assessing some of the uh trail bid bridge fish passage which we will we'll fill in the the blanks there. Uh, one of the things you'll notice about this is the very bottom line at 3 and a.5% looks looks pretty good. Uh, we do have some challenges uh and opportunities to get there. Uh, it's a little bit different on the electric side in that much of that savings is in the first five years. So, uh, we're looking at 55 million worth of target to go after on the electric side. 45 of that is in the first five years. And so we're going to have to look at our project schedules and what we can afford to do um and um include that in our um our planning process.

1:01:39 This is um uh where we stand uh from a comparator perspective. Um if you look at 3 and a half% on the electric side, 6% on the on the water side, um you can see um how that impacts um where we are um from a uh just a a regional comparator perspective. Um also to note though, we don't know um this is a snapshot in time. We fully anticipate many of these uh organizations and or communities will see uh significant increases um over the next year or so. Uh many of the inflationary impacts that that we're seeing some of some of those organizations are seeing greater impacts than we are. So this is this is a snapshot um and u just the the general

1:02:27 dollar impact of um under these these residential scenarios. When we look at affordability, um affordability u being defined in in our case as the utility cost. So this is electric and water um combined utility cost as a percentage of um median household income. It's something that we started to look at um a number of years ago. Um in 2015, I believe that was up at about 4.25%. So um combination of maintaining some degree of cost control um within EWB's control but also recognizing that median income is the other half of the equation um that um that has dropped from roughly

1:03:14 4.25 down to 3.4 o over the last uh number of years. uh we still um um include affordability and actually part of the next discussion I'll talk a little bit about affordability as um uh something that we hear from from customers. It's something we know the board is is cognizant of and that we have to balance uh relative to the things that we need to invest in with that. Commissioners, um just I know that you have um quite a bit of background material. Um have been through this before. We'd be um happy to answer questions. Um um here with me, I should have said this at the very beginning. Karen Kelly, our chief operations officer, and also Deborah

1:04:01 Hart, um AGM and chief financial officer. uh we'd be happy to get any guidance that you can provide before we launch into the next um period of time where we're looking for savings and also um preparing budgets and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Um that's a little scary um about the rate increases and things. Um, why don't we have Springfield in there as a comparator as a percentage of um, their utility costs and their income? And I mean, there that's the one I get hit with all of us and it's not there. Why isn't it there? I think this has evolved over time. You can answer that one.

1:04:51 So we we pull income uh from the census data and the census data that we use does not break out Springfield in the same way as Eugene. So that provides us some challenge. We can go back and we can look at that again and see if there's a way that we can capture it. Commissioner Brown, we uh these comparators have shifted around over time. there's there's no reason that we can't add or subtract from comparators as the board has interest. Okay. Um and so um as we prepare our budgets, we'll we'll include whatever we can include as far as context relative to Springfield. And what's the assumption with Walterville in this analysis? So, as far as production,

1:05:43 Walterville is out until seven right now, I believe. Yes, Walterville's out, but no costs associated with meeting the 10 million 10 million year criteria. There were some costs associated with that with with just the 4 bay the three the the lining of the 4 bay or the the bigger project. Yes. The the the assumption was that um the solution that we've we've um think is promising will take some time to implement based on response and that that would assume production starting 2027 or is out through 20 2027. um starting in 2028. Um if uh if that

1:06:31 changes, we'll get get back with the board as we learn more about that particular situation. But that's the assumption at this point. We have had to decommission similar to Leeird. Let's just say another 250 million. Have you done a sensitivity analysis on that? What this does to this venue? We have um started some initial discussions internally, but that's not included here. Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. It's some we got some challenges. And last question is I noticed that you talk either redoing or decommissioning Santa Clara. Has that decision been made yet? That decision has not been made yet. Thank you, Wendy. Um just a couple questions for me. One

1:07:17 about the affordability piece. When we look at the median household income for Eugene, does that take into account the student population too when we're looking at income? So students who reside outside of university housing, so non-dorm students would be captured in census data for this area. Does that skew the It does. To what extent? I I cannot say for certain, but it does. Right. Commissioner Sloer, I would also add that one of the things that we're trying to to dive into um not just relative to the budgetary discussion now, but also when we start talking about our limited

1:08:02 income programs, what does that really mean and who is included and excluded from that? In some cases, students are included um when you when you see a number of so much percentage of your population is below the federal poverty level. Sometimes that includes students of some type and not others. So there's there's a programmatic side to that question as well. Um not just a budgetary side that that we're looking into. And then my other question, it might be in the background or and I just missed it, but um on the water side, we're deferring some of the transmission work. I'm just curious why is it a cost savings just to put it off a little bit longer

1:08:47 with the work in the plan how we had originally intended, the rates went up above where we thought people could handle it. Okay. Thank you. I think a a pretty critical part of this process and this is really for all commissioners um as as well as the public for that matter is that um we're approaching this from two angles. On one side you have this big old pile of work that you think you want to do. Uh sometimes you feel like you have to do some of it. Some of it is riskbased. you're you're making decisions with uh infrastructure that you know is is sort of longived and um uh trade-offs between operational costs

1:09:32 and replacement costs and um that's one side that we're looking at. The other side that we're very cognizant of and this is this is a lens that we know that we have to put on it which is what can we afford to do. So there's what you think you want and what you think you need to do. We want to make sure that we can invest in a way that continues our products and services through time, but also we can't uh break the bank uh in doing that. And so it's um it's a back and forth and it's a process to look at which ones of these we can adjust schedule-wise, which ones we can we can push off a little bit or accelerate. Um, and that's the process that when we see

1:10:17 some of those numbers around target savings, those are things that as an organization we're going to have to really sit down and dive into and say there's a there's a rate target here that that commissioners feel like they're comfortable with and what's it going to take to operate within that? Um, we also don't want to put ourselves in a position where we know some other entities are, which is your hand is forced at some later point because you haven't actively and intentionally managed your money appropriately. So, we want to we want to make sure this is on our terms and there's no reason we can't start sooner rather than later with with this work. And it is always part of our thinking, but we want to make sure we're very intentional with that this time. Thank you.

1:11:06 Thank you, chair. Yeah, I um appreciate the work that went into this. Um it's a pretty scary number of I'm looking at the 15% uh in 2027 as well. And I'll echo uh Commissioner Brown. I appreciate that the Wamic treatment plant conversation is going to be separated. I think that there's been some developments with with that particular project and so I'm I'm grateful that that's now its own conversation that's going forward. Um, and I just have a comment on the median household income. So, the city of Eugene, I think last year, maybe two years ago, time's not real, it's rough. Um, but uh released information based on um the average household of uh homeowners versus renters. And for homeowners, it's around $70,000. I think

1:11:52 it's $73,000 for average homeowner renter or for homeowner household. For renters, it's about 32,000. And so when we're looking at this number in particular, it is disproportionately affecting more than 55% of our community. Um, that's scary to me and that's problematic. And so I appreciate this conversation and I appreciate this dedication to look into this, but I I'm hoping that we can have continued and and in-depth conversation about how to how to how to address this. Thank you. Commissioner Morris, I think there's there's kind of um there's two pieces to this this puzzle we're trying to solve. Um one of them is

1:12:38 just our overall that's why we call this a revenue requirement. So part of that is to make sure that in bulk we're doing whatever we can to uh appropriately appropriately invest and budget the organization as a whole. the the process of how that gets divided into rates and programs um is is a second piece well actually probably two more pieces the rate side and then the programmatic side and so all of those play together and and I'll just give you one example we know that um the LI heat program is is not going to be available and so we going into this next year will increase some of our um uh some of our our budget to help our

1:13:27 limited income program because we know that there's a certain part of our population that that will not have access to that. Those those are um multiple things to to kind of that they they interact. Um to your point, affordability, part of when we think about affordability is affordability for whom? And so this can mean different things to different people and that's that's going to have to be part of our conversation when we look at our programs. I I originally uh had a a similar question uh to Commissioner Brown about the Springfield situation. And I feel like we bring this up every single time

1:14:12 that chart gets raised and um nothing actually changes. We want to have our local comparators in there and we we need to get Springfield in there. Um comparing to San Francisco or Sacramento is bizarre to me. Um so anyway, that's one piece. uh you know the rate increases right now especially frontloading some of those I know it's something that we've talked about but given the 18% increase that's now been put on the storm water fees and all of the different safety nets that are evap evaporating and will be gone at least for the next

1:14:58 few years most likely we may need to further um look at our discussion about front filling some of that I know that it costs less now um versus um you know spending the money, you know, borrowing down the road to cover it. I I don't know that we need to change what you've put in here right now, but it is it is something that's going to be on my mind. And I think as we see the full impacts of massive massive cuts, I mean from an economic perspective, cutting federal spending uh that goes out to the general population is going to have wide reaching impacts. I don't I don't think

1:15:45 we fully understand and appreciate um how hard hit many are going to be once those layoffs start coming in once those safety nets start going away. It will happen in the next probably 6 to 8 months and it's going to be a lot clearer how we're going to need to make adjustments because people are not going to be able to afford any increases. And so I I just want to make sure that as we you know have these discussions that yes, this was prudent um a prudent way to plan. Um I think when we had the information we did, but now that we have new information, we're going to have to be a lot more cautious about it. Um I also think that we could, you know, to the other point that

1:16:30 Commissioner Brown made, uh we could potentially think about doing some additional lobbying lobbying. Um, I I just continue to think about the reasons why our system is more expensive than some of our competitors and I know that we're required to do to do things that uh because of our size that others in the region are not. We should give a hard look at that and and see if there's other regulations or rules that can be lightened up um as we go into future sessions. It's not something we've discussed more broadly and I know it's not the current topic here, but it does impact the costs that we have on our infrastructure because it it heightens the kinds of

1:17:16 uh the kinds of situations that we have to plan for in our capital planning. um a a 10 million even a 1 million year um sort of flood or disaster is insane to me to have to plan for it. That's a risk mitigation I think beyond our our level of control. I mean if we have an event of that scale or magnitude it's not because we didn't plan. I mean that's that's a natural disaster that we're going to need additional assistance to to address. So anyway, those are my thoughts. Um, thank you for the work to put it together. I do appreciate that we are um separating out the uh the secondary water source as well

1:18:02 because I know that that is going to be a a major discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Um so I have a couple questions and a comment. Um, on the electricity side, the targeted savings, I didn't see those in the backgrounder. I mean, what how do you get $10 million in savings in 27 and 19 and 28. It would be helpful for me to know what those projects that are c falling off of the last year's list are because they that may be a staff priority, but if we're approving a 10-year long-term financial

1:18:47 plan, the priorities may be different for the board. Commissioner, I I would say that there's um if if you look at where we would traditionally look for those opportunities. Um the classification of work that we have is on one end compulsory. Something breaks, you have to fix it. You're maintaining service. There's regulatory obligations, obligations to serve. Um there are strategic um projects. those uh will tend to be things that are supporting our our strategy that we have worked on together. And then there are these riskbased projects and the riskbased projects will be the ones um that first

1:19:32 get looked at because those are dealing with trade-offs between investment and time. Um and those are the ones that um we will be working with staff to identify and um with with a target toward this 45 million in the first five years that that you see on the electric side, but there's there will be more detail that goes into that. Um and we'll have to identify what those are. But those would tend to be ones that um where there's trade-offs between between um timing and risk. Okay. Um, yeah. And I mean I I see things here on the ri on the on the list that that may or may not play out in the future.

1:20:18 Second source, you know, we've committed to it going to 30% design. Um, which is was a $10 million that we put in last year. Five million of it is is in this one here. Um, so you know, some of those may go away. So that that that is, you know, some upper river stuff, you know, may may need to be looked at again. So I think that this is good for where we're at today, but I think that next year we may have some answers that may impact this a little differently. Yeah, Commissioner Barowski, I just I just want to really kind of be clear with something, and that's that um we understand and I think commissioners are are have made this point. You'll you'll actually hear it a little bit

1:21:04 when we talk about our our business model and approach to the business management system and other things that um rates matter. Uh the rates we know they matter to our customers. They they matter to commissioners. What we've shown here is is if we did not mitigate what we want to do and we just go out and say, "Okay, let's do everything we want to do." Not not everything. I I should say there's probably things that staff wants to do that are not on the list. This has significant rate impacts, right? We see the ability and this is a commitment that we are going to dive into and make. We see the ability to mitigate that to achieve the objective that the board has put forth which is

1:21:49 rate increases um appropriately near typical inflation. And that means $45 million on the electric side in the first 5 years. Now that s that's $45 million is a significant number. But when you consider the annual budget's 400 million you're talking about 400 million that that's $2 billion and we're we're identifying 45 to 50 million in savings. It is achievable. um it will require what you've described, which is to go through and figure out what's most important, how the risk profiles align with what we're trying to do. So, but I just I just want commissioners to understand there there are two sides to this and we we have to go back and work

1:22:37 on the balance here between all of the things going on around us, what we can want to do versus what we can afford to do and what that looks like at the end of the day. Great. Um I share I share fellow commissioners um concerns about rates. But when I look at what is proposed, $7 on electric and $3 on water, that's better than what we've seen in the last couple of years. And I'm encouraged that you guys are working hard that to get that so that it's not that big. Um I know $10 is $10, but um

1:23:26 there's also all of the challenges that go along with with running this organization. Last thing I want to say is that that I have to um voice the commissioner that wasn't that was sitting in Tim's seat before him when it comes to the watershed recovery fee. Um you didn't put the w the watershed recovery fee goes away in 2026. I made a commitment when he left this board that we would have a discussion about a watershed enhancement fee or something like that

1:24:13 moving forward and maybe not put it into rate design. I still if I can get head nods from the people and not right now but I think that our community values the work that we do on our watersheds both the McKenzie and if we are going to be moving into the WAMIT I think it's important and I think that our community would would be okay with continuing that as a fee as opposed to having it go into rate increases. So, I'm hoping that we can have that discussion before that fee goes away in 2026. I committed to to um a former commissioner that I would keep

1:24:59 that forward. So, I just wanted to put that out there. Um, and then the question that I did have is the $3 that is going up that would be offset if that fee goes away in 2026. Um, as far as people as far as the projected rate increases. So on water side, you're looking at 6% in 2026. If the $3 goes away, does that drop that down? The bill would go down, but the rate, right? Okay. And I mean, and so I'm looking at th this year the rate is

1:25:46 going up $3. So it kind of President Baroski, we'll we'll make sure that we get on the agenda um the discussion around the fee. Um I I'll give you a little bit of heads up that I'm probably going to push back on creating a series of fees for what would be considered uh normal routine work of the organization that should be rate based and that that will we'll have to have that discussion. Um the watershed recovery fee was very specific. It had a very specific time frame. it had um a sunset date and it had a defined scope. Um watershed protection should be part

1:26:34 of our normal operating mode. And so um having it as a separate fee does does not align with my thinking. But to your point, we should have the discussion and I'll make sure that um in in working with you and vice president Schloberg and on the future agendas that we can tee that up. So, so I guess to follow up on that then is if if we wanted to continuing continue funding those types of activities that that fee has been used for in rates.

1:27:21 I would like to know what type of impact that would have on rates. Is that a 1% two, you know, and if we if that goes away, what type of watershed enhancements or or those types of things are we not going to be doing because that $3 goes away? Yeah, I that's totally appropriate to have the discussion on. Um, President Barroski, the the scope of which we think has been accomplished and is expiring, we will need to identify those. Those those would be things that we'll say are going away so that the commissioners are aware that we have fulfilled that scope from our perspective. And then if there are additional enhancements to the watershed

1:28:07 protection program, what those might be and what the rate impacts would be, that that's that should be part of that overall discussion. and um we'll tee it up um to accomplish I think what you're looking for. Okay. Thank you. Looking forward to that discussion. Any other comments or questions at this point from I'd just like to voice strong support for that discussion on the watershed fee or rate or whatever because I think the lower river is getting totally neglected. Not it's nothing all the money is being spent up there but where's all our problems? and you look at that last watershed recovery report and the report and so I for one when we when we do it with rates or a fee I I want to get into the details of it. So

1:28:53 I'm going to be pounding the table pretty hard about getting some more money for the lower river. Thank you. I would expect nothing less from you, Commissioner Brown. Thank all right so there was no action on this that you were asking for us. Did you get everything that you wanted from us on this? I I think we we got um our our goal was to understand your interests and your perspectives on the different pieces here and we got that. Okay, great. Thank you. Hey, now it's time for a break. So, it's 7 o'clock. We'll come back here at 10 after 7. Thank you.

1:40:00 review of annual organizational goals and some revisions possibly. President Barski, commissioners, again, good evening. This is Frank Lawson. Um, joining me up here is Kelly Hail, who's the strategic adviser uh for the organization. Um this um subject um to tea up at this point is is purelyformational and to gather feedback from commissioners on um how we're approaching our strategic work um our business management system and kind of what's entailed uh when we uh look at this uh holistically across the organization.

1:40:45 What we'll do this evening um is to introduce the the concepts and some of the key components to this. We're not going to take a complete uh deep dive under the hood um partially because there's just a lot to it and um we want to make sure that we u provide a little bit of time for commissioners to provide some highle response and guidance. Um we'll touch a little bit on when you apply that process um what it looks like uh to the organizational goals. Um just as a note, we will be reporting out on the organizational goals as they were approved in February um at the August

1:41:30 meeting formally. Um the intent this evening looking at these a little bit different is not to sort of bait and switch the goals or um um student body left mo most of those um remain relatively consistent. Um but when you look at what drives organizational goals um based on a a system a strategic deployment system um the intent of those drives uh some modification to it. the uh the business management system that we're looking at and this is um not necessarily uh unique to e webb there are usually some pretty common components when you look at um running an organization of e

1:42:17 webb size and complexity um and in some cases in a competitive environment that that creates uh some dynamics that you need as an organization um there are often three prim primary components to it in one form or another and those are then based on some foundational values that an organization can have. And so uh what we we are really uh looking at is to emphasize uh continuous improvement uh for our operational aspects of the organization. Um a large percentage of the organization is involved in keeping the lights on, keeping the water flowing, keeping the money and the information flowing. Um it is about

1:43:02 reactive, responsive um continuation of services and we want to recognize that that is something that we want to continuously improve on. A second piece of that is something that u the commissioners um who have been involved in particular with the strategic work of the organization I think will appreciate the fact that you can develop strategies um that generally position the organization to continue to be successful uh but you need a way to align and deploy an organization especially of our size or larger around what those key components and key breakthroughs are. Uh and then

1:43:47 the the workforce side of this is one where that's in particular part of the resource that you're building to accomplish those other two pillars with the ultimate goal is to be able to create uh sustainable results for the organization going forward. And that's the basis for um how we're approaching our business management system. One of the kind of key questions that um comes to mind and I know that the commissioners will be thinking well why why this why now? Um some of it has to do with the dynamics of the environment. I think the other thing and the one that I'll probably emphasize two here rather I'm not going to just read these. I'll

1:44:34 emphasize two. One of them is I think something that the commissioners have been interested in. It came out uh in discussion of some of the goals is that um in order to when you have a structured system, it really develops the basis for sustaining and improving your performance. And that can be independent of the environment that you're operating in. And in fact the it can be independent of who is in play because you build a culture around the organization that goes past an individual or a group and develops a system around continuing your performance. Uh the other one um has to do with engagement and transparency that

1:45:19 this provides to uh the employees of the organization to the community and the fact that sometimes we do things in a very narrow window. So we have annual goals that um contribute to a longer um strategic objective. And so being able to align those and communicate the purpose of those becomes particularly important when you deal with some of the time frames that we deal with in our organization. There's a couple things to point out as far as where this and how this kind of fits um in the organization. Um there is a process associated with how you uh deploy. In this case we're calling it

1:46:05 the strategic compass. Um it's not uh just one tool. It's a it's a collection of tools that really looks at uh the the business priorities of the organization. Um the the three to five year themes to get there and then the annual goals that support those those themes. But there's there's two piece of the of this that are really important from a long-term perspective. Um the ring down at the bottom has to do with the fact that you're constantly deploying the organization to pursue these objectives. And so there is a a process associated with the the annual deployment of work. The fact that that work should be meaningful and align with a broader

1:46:51 purpose. And so that's a continual process of reviewing, assessing, measuring, and then reactivating. And then at the top also um over time this will identify both opportunities and gaps in your strategy itself. And that's one thing that um in the 2018 to 2028 strategic plan we have phases we have a lot of work defined but we haven't really defined and that's where this will help u the board and and um staff is to what's next what's what goes beyond 2028. So what's the strategy look like through 2035? And this provid provides the basis to be able to have

1:47:36 items that can contribute to that. There's a few specific tools. We'll just we'll probably just run through one of them and it's called the X matrix. um and give you a little peak under the hood um with the X matrix. U but it it should be noted that there are also other things that are part of this. Um there's different ways of scoping, measuring, um looking at recovery plans. If you have an objective, what are you doing if it goes off track? Um and then quarterly reporting, which the board is familiar with. Um, but we also want to make sure that that quarterly reporting is representing the work that the organization is doing and the fact that that work is contributing to something

1:48:23 that has either operational or strategic value. This is this is an eye test. I don't expect you to read this. Um but if you start on the the very um kind of the the far left um it identifies the strategic priorities of the organization. These come out of the strategic plan um such as the one that's highlighted there uh which has to do with aligning our supply resources um uh on the electric side. And then what that rolls into is a series of things that happen over the the the near three to five year window that then uh contributes to achieving that business objective. And ultimately

1:49:10 on the right side uh you get down into what are we going to do now? What are we going to do in the next year that builds ultimately toward that business priority? Um what's um what's unique about this particular tool is the fact that when we talk about connecting the dots literally connecting the dots here um what you can notice is that you can have one thing that you're working on that contributes to multiple different pieces. There's a stacking of benefits that can happen uh with one particular thing that you're working on. uh you know one one example is the modernization of our IT systems um has

1:49:56 strategic value not only for um improving our operations but also our resiliency and our um continuation of of energy supply. So there's um there can be a stacking of benefits that this tool uh will tend to to highlight. when we went through this process and the executive team specifically along with with Kelly um over a number of of months really starting with the strategic piece looking at our our our values our mission and working our way u kind of through uh what we thought were the the the business priorities the

1:50:44 five-year ways to get there. uh we eventually landed on 18 organizational goals for 2025. And your first reaction might be, "Wow, there's 18 of these. I thought there was before there was only five or six." Well, there's there's a few things to to note. Um one of them is that if you look at the way we've structured goals in the past, we might have five or six, but might they might have three or four subcomponents to it. So really there's there's probably 15 to to 18 uh goals in there. Uh the other thing that should be noted here is this is work we're doing and so I think that um it is important to to recognize that the work we are doing at the annual level does have ties

1:51:31 back to the work that we're looking to achieve over over the long term. And so these are um uh for example what they would look like by using this process. Um we did because we're we're kind of changing the tires as we're driving down the road a little bit here. Uh we did uh make references on the right side there to um where the goals that were approved in in February might have landed here. Um there's some that um are work that wasn't represented in those goals. Um we also know that there's continuous improvement that work we're working on operations which I mentioned is another part of the business management system.

1:52:16 And then there's a there's a couple that are emerging. The very bottom one is an example determine the future of the Mackenzie Valley service territory. So that's that's one that has come out of this this discussion. um some that were also not mentioned and and I think this is a particular important one. Um and I think we missed it uh quite honestly to not state it more specifically which is item number two. Evaluate and manage budgets and spending based on prioritized outcomes with rate impacts near levels of inflation. Um when we talked about the goals last time, it was just oh we're going to do this, we're going to do this, we're going to do this. we never put some kind of boundary around it relative to uh the other side of that

1:53:04 which is being able to afford what we're doing uh as we go forward. And so um we went through a number of iterations uh the executive team looking at um how things and how the work relates to each other. Um what we felt u was doable in the remaining part of this year. A lot of that work again was in flight in support of other goals. And our intent is not to bait and switch those goals, but to uh start to launch a a a process that we think is more succinct and more aligned with the strategic plan that we can work with with commissioners on. And so, um, just a little bit of, and this is a probably further under the hood

1:53:50 than you would want to go, is is just, uh, to recognize that while we have 18 organizational goals, there are 34 things we are working on in support of those goals that are critical milestones, measurements, plans, programs, um, KPIs, what, however you want to look at it. um a number of different things going on across the organization. So at the end of the year, this is the this is the decoder ring. So if we say, "Oh, look, we accomplished or partially accomplished or didn't accomplish this goal." Um here's the evidence package to say we did and or

1:54:35 where we are in that process. those the areas in green out there um are aligned with assignments and allocation of resource in support of the annual goals. So this is this is probably a little bit um below the hood but if you were to say yeah we're comfortable with these goals each of those goals has multiple different things that we are working on to support their successful achievement. So, before we come back next month and and talk about where we are with the the February goals that that were published and and approved by uh the board, there's um just we we just wanted to to get your take on um maybe your appetite

1:55:23 to look at something um knowing that that we're using this to align the organization. um see if you had any comments, any concerns, any any things associated with what you might want your level of involvement to be with within the deployment piece. Um and um and then check at the end whether you are open um and and we would like to see our work represented in the goals. So I I can tell you what our biased opinion is. Um but also uh get your take on the a little bit of a different view toward um how we're going to manage our business and how we're going to work with the

1:56:09 board on future goals and then also um on future strategic updates. And so with that, President Ambberki, I'll open it up back to you um just for comments, thoughts, questions, kind of fully expect to be grilled at this point with with all kinds of different inquiries. Um but be happy to answer any questions and share our our thoughts and and ideas and goals here. Indy, I really like this format a lot. Um, I feel like the organizational goals as we have them now, they're a little bit more like themes. Um, and I know that there's

1:56:54 been questions in the past about how do we measure our progress? I know we do the quarterly report, but sometimes it's just kind of hard to tease out what exactly is in these goals and how do we know if we've achieved it or how we're doing. And I think that this format really lends itself much better to seeing our progress and how we're doing. I also think it's much more transparent when you're laying out all of those 18 goals. Um I'm sure more goals will come up. And I also like the dynamic aspect of this that you can kind of add to it. It's like a living document more I think than the current one that we have. So I'm highly supportive of this. Thank you. I I'll um just comment,

1:57:39 Commissioner Slothburg. One of the biggest values that comes out of a process like this is the alignment and the discussion of the tradeoffs and it's actually called catchall. Um because you're and and as an executive team, we would have liked to have been here talking about this probably two months ago, but we were debating and I'll say throwing the ball at each other, not playing catch. I mean, we were literally trying to understand the trade-offs and where things aligned, where things didn't. You know, we might be working on one thing that has multiple benefits or one thing that has one benefit and just debating those. And so, that's a big part of the value is to understand that and build on that and then being able to

1:58:25 deploy that and have the whole organization, including the board, uh, understand what that looks like. It's it's not so much, oh, here's a bunch of dots and things. It's the process to get there that is incredibly important um for the really for the ongoing um kind of succinct secession and continuation of the process too. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I um first I hope when you close your eyes you don't see dots everywhere. So, I just I really hope that um I want to uh just echo my fellow commissioner uh Schlashberg of just the amount of time and energy that's been put into this and how I

1:59:10 agree that looking at the goals as they were in in in the previous iteration. Um I really appreciate it. I think it gave me a very clear perspective of what e webb is and what we're hoping to accomplish. But I think it also maybe is more reflective of of vision and values rather than actual goals to achieve. And so I think that this is a clear difference of that. It provides a wraparound understanding of of everything that EW is doing. Um and I really appreciated the acknowledgement that um different goals and outcomes affect different parts of the organization or different parts of our community. I think that isn't so reflected in our current what eight goals but is definitely reflected in this document. So I just want to um also

1:59:56 share my support of this. Um I had a question of is there a goal of of I had a question as well. Um, is there a goal of like of of prioritization of these goals? Are uh or is it to just have them listed out and and checkmarked accomplished or not? It's a it's a it's a great question and I I think when you go through the the process more and more you get into um a hierarchal discussion about there's kind of this first recognition that you're identifying things and then as you go through the process more and more part of the catchall process is to recognize that you can't do everything

2:00:41 all at the same time. Um and you have to decide and make tradeoffs. um it does become a bit more transparent when you start to look at what things are foundational to other things. And and I'll and I'll use AMI as an example. Um if we look at how AMI on the electric side ultimately contributes to our business priorities, it's a pretty clear reason why we would be doing that. um is to facilitate um customer participation um improving um and encouraging beneficial behavior that helps with that business objective. That is a different business objective than the water side has for AMI water meters. And so it

2:01:26 starts to become clear what's foundational and what isn't and also what's a prerequisite to something else. And so it's a little bit I would say we're we're pretty new in that part of it being able to kind of look and and allocate the resources. Um it also at this point only represents strategic breakthrough work. Uh we still have half of the organization that is in the continuous improvement operational piece and that will be reported through standard KPIs. I'll call them dashboards. We want to make sure that we're operating effectively, good safety, reliability, all those things. Um, it it does not diminish the importance of that, but it really starts

2:02:11 to manage the strategic breakthrough work. Where are you going to as an organization put your priorities? So that and by the way, if you saw dots everywhere, we wouldn't be doing it right. Um, and so there's there there has to be some degree of recognition to to that. So don't blur your eyes too much because it it it won't look right to you. Yeah. Thank my autotometrist thanks you as well. Yeah. Um yeah and I I want to recognize too some of these goals have definite end dates and and accomplishments and some of these goals are much more intention and and long-term and and and based in in what we want to accomplish. And so um yeah, I'll I'll echo my support um from Commissioner Slashberg and I think that this is a a great path forward. Yeah. are one of the things that you you will notice with this and I think that

2:02:56 some of the commissioners have brought this up in the past was they kind of want to see where things come in and fall off relative to a longer theme. And I think this what this recognizes is if if you look at several iterations of this through through a number of years, the five-year themes will be relatively stable. I mean, you're not going to be totally stable because then you're not paying attention to the world around you. But you're going to notice that these are listed as three to five year themes for a reason. There's some degree of we're looking into the future. Um, at the same time, you'll notice that annually some work can come and go or continue in support of that. And I think commissioners have requested that in the past that things can kind of come and go

2:03:42 from the goals list and like where'd this go? Where'd that come from? This gives you a little bit more insight into the sort of the queue of work that it will take to accomplish those three to fiveyear um themes or initiatives if you want to call them that. Thank you. I'm going to wait to pass judgment on until I see how this works. And so because you kind of gave me a drink out of a fire hydrant, you got me. But um I'm good with moving forward, but I'm you know been seeing a different process for many many years. You changing it now. I'm going to be curious to see how my interpretation of this works and so um move forward and let's see how it works because I trust my other commissioners and their support for it. So go for it. Thank you.

2:04:29 Yeah. Thanks, Commissioner Brown. I know the proof is always in the pudding. Um and um I think part of that is is to recognize that you want to create organizational momentum um and on the things that you believe are important longer term. And I I think otherwise you get into uh fits and starts within an organization. And part of the the goal here um of having a process like this would it is that it would create momentum that involves the board uh leadership um and really aligns the work throughout the organization. That'll be uh a big um part of this purpose. Um but

2:05:17 totally get um that that we want to be able to demonstrate this and demonstrate its success over time Sonia. So I'm um I I appreciate the work and um the effort to make this more functional for you all internally. So I support that if this works better for you. Um I am curious about two kind of things. So in terms of our quarterly reports then are we not going to get um kind of the individual I'll say dials on how the individual

2:06:03 projects are going or will that still be a part of the report out that we get on a quarterly basis? You will still get several things uh on a quarterly basis. Uh some of that, Commissioner Carlson, is is because um it's um consistent with policy. So there's certain things in the quarterly report such as the the EL1 capital report, the contracts report. Those those things are driven by policy. You'll continue to see those. Um you will also um continue to see some of the operational dashboards associated with safety, reliability, uh financial um compliance and those things. And then

2:06:49 you will also see on top of that um the the progress we are making toward these annual goals. And so um that you know our intent is to continue that because there are different activities that contribute to the goals. Um we're we're going to have to look at its structure a little bit differently. Um we can do one thing that might have a positive impact on three or four goals. And so we don't want to relist that three or four times. So we might have to to cross reference a few things. But the intent will be that on a quarterly basis we can monitor our our progress uh toward the achievement of the annual goals. That is that is

2:07:34 still our intent. And um it sounds like you're you're a proponent of the dial. So we'll we'll continue to use the dials and um then make the appropriate demonstrate the appropriate evidence that the dial is in the position it should be. Yeah. For me, it just helps helps me understand, you know, and even if uh on page what 111 here of our board packet where it has the the um piece that you that you have sideways, but it's tipped up on its edge for uh uh length of the paper, but each of the 18 goals, if if we still had the the dial there, it helps me understand, are we on track?

2:08:20 are we, you know, behind? Are we ahead of schedule? It that is a really easy visual way for me to quickly see and and and I think for, you know, our community members who are following along too, I think that helps us kind of see, you know, where where do we have challenges and where do we have opportunities? So, I do appreciate that. Um, so if that can continue to be incorporated, um, thank you. That that's a point. That is the intent, Commissioner Carlson, is to is to not just So, one of the I'll say the not so good things about the dials as they stand now is it isn't always clear the evidence that is used to put the dial in a particular status.

2:09:08 And so it will I I think this new approach will make it much more clear that um let's say goal number 11 is on track because of these three pieces of work. For example, it'll it'll make that link much more clear so that it won't be well why' you put the dial in behind or why'd you put it on track? Um what's really driving that? and there which we tend to have to do in a narrative form and so this will help daylight that. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Um my other question is that we voted to add in

2:09:53 uh goal eight around rentals specifically um 2025 organizational goal number eight. And I don't see this. It's in there on one line item, but it doesn't mention rental stock uh really at all. And so I I just want to make sure that that's still a part of this plan because it was something that we called out specifically. Yeah, we're going to in in the next month when we come back in in August, we'll provide a little bit more of a road map there. um part of the discussion that uh we'll need to have uh around uh some of the specifics and

2:10:38 there's only there's a couple of examples where we will want to have a discussion so that we mutually understand where some things will fit. Um and so that's that's one example. we're we're not um it's not going to just arbitrarily uh disappear uh given the the commissioner's um interest in that topic, but we want to make sure we know where it aligns with the organization as well. So, um, that's something that, u I'll say more to come on, um, as we take a look at the goals as they're written now and try to map over either a portion or all or some of where they are now versus where they

2:11:23 would go. We we don't want to have that be unclear. So, there'll be a little bit more to come on that. Okay. Thank you. That's it for me. Thank you. um you know at the break somebody came up to me and said you know you ask Brian a question almost all the time uh in the past thing and I said you know for me sometimes I like to hear from the sergeants instead of just the colonel and with that being said I see Kelly sitting at the table here and she hasn't spoken a word so I just would like to have hear your perspective on this process seeing how you've been involved in Welcome to the party.

2:12:08 Hey. Yes. Thank you so much. Uh I'm thrilled to be here tonight. I'm really excited about this process. I think it's one of the most significant um opportunities that we've had at EW Webb to really bring clarity to our goal process and help the organization ensure that we all know what we're working towards and we're all pulling together. And I think that it's a really um important moment in time to do that as the operating environment in which we're living is getting more volatile and getting more change and we need to provide uh everinccreasing more value to our community. I think this is the way we're going to get there. I'm really excited about it. Thank you for sharing. Can you go back You can ask Brian what he thinks also.

2:12:54 Can you go back to slide 31? the why are we changing h how we plan which one how why are we changing how we plan near the top this one yes so to me in this slide two things really jumped out um and it was the third bullet down inspire confidence and trust internally and externally and then the one third from the bottom engage employees foster a sense of ownership and participation. I think these are super important and I I really I really think that I hope that we can achieve those. I think that the

2:13:40 you know when we had dinner I saw all these dots up on the whiteboard, right? There was there was the matrix and then there was all kinds of other stuff that went and and I think that this is something that the board definitely is buying into and I think that the executive teams are really buying into but getting the whole organization as a whole to buy into it is going to be really really important you know because I can see it being oh god here's another plan on how we all got to road together right and and it needs the deployment part of this to the to the rank and file employee I think is going to be as important as it is to the board and the

2:14:26 upper management team because that's the ones that are actually doing the work to get this these goals enacted. So I'm looking forward to the deployment KPIs and how well we are actually deploying it throughout the organization because I think top down it looks great but if you can't get it bottom up and we can't engage the employees and foster a sense of ownership and participate participation it's just another plan on a whiteboard and so that the deployment I think is going to be the most important I I think um there's two aspects of that that are um worth

2:15:12 noting. One of them um is that um as you're doing work in the moment um what guides your work is the context of which where where it fits. And so it helps people understand that I'm working on this, but this is the greater cause or the greater impact that this work can have. And so it really provides some great context to to where the work can can fit. And that's particularly important in an organization that has uh shared resources, has limited resources. We I' I've never worked for any organization, I don't think anybody has, that just had unlimited resources. Uh we have to make choices and so getting

2:15:57 people and helping people understand those choices is a is a part of that. Um, and then also recognizing that um, based on the timing of how our present strategy was developed there, I'm going to say probably of the staff in the room, 80% of the staff wasn't involved when this strategic plan was originally developed. And so finding ways to sustain and improve that and provide those ties creates this continuity over time and it creates a basis to improve it. And I think that's when we think about organizational momentum and secession. You have to have those things to be able to to meet that objective.

2:16:43 And so um I'd say all of these are important. Um um and I don't want to um um you know prioritize one of these over the other. I do think that um staff is um is an important part of that and staff has told us they want to know where their work fits and and what the the role and the purpose of it is. Great. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Thank you very much for the presentation. Thank you, commissioners. More more to come. Yeah. All right. Our next uh item is future board agendas.

2:17:29 Andy? Yeah. I have a question. Um next month, I believe we have a city of Eugene liaison update and we don't have anything scheduled, right? No. And they're on Well, probably. Okay. Um, create some time. Okay. Um, and my other question, I mean, I'm part of the planning for the agenda, so this is a little bit on me, but um, I'm noticing that we're always ahead when we get to public input, and I know that we've tweaked the beginning of the meeting before, but it seems to only take us like 10 10 minutes to get to public input. So, I'm just wondering if in our future um agendas that we can

2:18:17 just maybe shorten it just because if we tell people that this is what time we're starting public input, we probably should try to stick to that and it'd be a little bit better for us to start public input like five minutes late if we were going over versus starting 10 minutes early. Sounds Yeah, I I think I think that's great. I'll I'll work with um staff on how that looks. It may depend uh a little bit uh commissioner on the correspondence. If we have correspondence where we're asking for feedback, that might be different than just correspondence like this evening where it was justformational and there were no comments. So we'll look to see how many

2:19:03 pieces of correspondence and what their role is and then adjust work with you to adjust. So next month we have a background on water STC methodology. September we have a discussion and uh October we have adoption. What's the plan to reach out to the development community? because I know several of us had pretty serious questions about what came up last time and I think those questions have not been answered. I'm not commissioner. I'm not sure we're going to tee it up in that particular time frame. Um there's just a few pieces that haven't come together on that. A lot of that's that's on me. I do think at some point um we need to have uh a

2:19:48 discussion about uh starting with the sort of the philosophical role of SDC's and how we're going to approach those. Um and then work our way into uh the number. Um you didn't like the number as a commissioner. Um but there are philosophies behind that number and who pays for what and those we should probably have the discussion about and then um we can figure out if there's an implementation plan that makes more sense which could be include including some outreach. So we're probably not on that schedule and I think your your point about um making that decision in isolation is a good one and we'll we'll have to figure out what the path looks

2:20:33 like. Thank you. nothing for me. Um, the only thing that I would put out there is, um, regarding the memo that we got from upper soil, upper Wamtt soil and water district, um, I would like to try and fit that into the August uh, agenda if we could. I will be gone in September. And so if we could put that in there and get some more more information from them and more information from our finance and and just kind of the impacts that that would have as far as property acquisition and stewardship of that property would be

2:21:18 helpful. So if we can fit that in that would be good. That's um we'll make that happen. Um, President Barovski, um, from a just a clarification as to what you're looking for, what they've requested is basically money, uh, from this board, uh, totaling $1 million over five years, and we can certainly present the um, the impact of that financially. the um letter I think was pretty specific about what property they're talking about, what their purpose is. We'll take a second look at that and if there's any clarifying questions, um we can either through our individual check-ins or a particular outreach, we can figure that out, but we

2:22:04 can certainly look at what that impact would be. Yeah. I mean, for me, I the information that would help me make that decision is is one, where the money would come from, you know, what what pot are we pulling that money out of and would it have rate impacts and those types of things would be the kind of questions that I would want to know. Um, the watershed recovery fee comes to mind. I'm sorry, I'm only kidding. Use sounds like a great use, right? Um, other than that, again, as I I stated, I will not be here in September. U, but I'll I'll watch it afterwards and I'll do uh maybe a a deeper dive before it goes in to give any input on something that I see in

2:22:49 there. Um, with that go around the room. Sonia, nothing for me. Great meeting tonight, I guess. Thanks for um just it's it was a big meeting. We got a we voted on some major things and we're ending early. So, congrats. Anybody else? $7 billion in two and a half hours. That's pretty good, President. And 15 years for Frank and Ann. Thank you.

2:23:35 with that. Yeah, a cake. I'm just saying juicy as a cake. Maybe next time. Maybe it'll be it'll be two billion andund or $25 for a cake. Thank you, Commissioners. Large 25 small.