EWEB Board of Commissioners — August 5, 2025

0:03 I'm going to call this meeting of the Gene Water and Electric Board uh order. My name is John Barovski. I'm president this year. Um we will start our agenda. Where did my agenda go? Agenda check. Anything from the commissioners that they need to change or check? Being none, we'll move on to two, which is items from board members and general manager. We'll start with Mindy. Tim, John Brown, two things. Um, I attended Lane Electric's annual meeting and, uh, I'm a customer, but also was invited. I'm the rep that do there. And I'd just

0:48 like to note that Scott Co, the general manager, is here. Welcome, Scott. And also um for the just to get it into the record, I've had several neighbors, my um north W five ask why all the water lines in the main roads like in Crescent Avenue, the side roads and everything. Every water um man cover has been I painted blue with arrows and things. They're just doing the water and I was just they're wondering why why they're doing that. I couldn't tell them. So if you get back to me and tell me so I could tell them. Thank you. >> We'll get back to you. >> Okay, Sonia. um and myself uh had a meeting with one of our consultants earlier this month that's working on one of our policies. So they met with uh Vice President Slober and myself just to kind of get a feel of how we're working on getting one

1:34 of our policies implemented. It went well, I guess. We'll see what if they think so, but from my end, it went well. Uh, general manager. >> Good evening, commissioners. Just uh most of the items were contained in my report. The one thing I did want to highlight was the upcoming September 11th uh safety expo um that um you should allow some time to attend if possible. Uh there's a pretty full agenda and um there's links on my report to uh further information about that, but that was something I wanted to noted. Other than that, I'm good. >> All right. Thank you. Um the next item is public input. So

2:19 I will read this. Welcome to the public input session for this meeting. E Web is a public nonforprofit organization whose charter is to deliver drinking water and electricity to our community. Although this forum is not used for an open back and forth dialogue, commissioners and staff value hearing from dispersed perspectives and 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 speakers or audience members become disruptive, they may be muted and or removed from the meeting. Uh when your name is called, you've got three minutes to provide your comment. The hearing is now open. I will call

3:04 names one at a time. And as of right now, I've got two names that have signed up. First is Carl Morganstein and then Tom Hutton. >> Good evening, commissioners. President Barovski, pleasure to be here. It's good to be here in person. Sorry I wasn't able to be here last month when uh I sent you all our request for upper lamid soil and water conservation district. I am the board chair for the upper lammit and uh wanted to uh bring forth the opportunity that I wrote to you last month and support uh and hope to get

3:49 support from e webb for uh managing that the the important property. So this opportunity came to the S SWCD because uh for 22 years when I worked at Eb, I tried to work with this landowner to increase conservation on this property that is immediately upstream of EW Webb's intake as a hazelnut orchard uh which tends to use a lot more chemicals per acre than other agricultural practices in the McKenzie. Um after I retired, the landowner approached me and said, "Well, you know, now I'm ready. Um can you help facilitate something?" So long story short is I've been working with this uh landowner for over a year to come to the opportunity that's before the upper lamid saltwater conservation district. We do have the funding uh

4:34 we're putting 4 million investment in the McKenzie to acquire this property. We are not there yet. The board still has to approve the purchase sale agreement. Um but given that uh we would not we are lacking the funding and need requesting e webb help us with funding for stewardship of the property after we own it for restoration work and other work that directly benefits water quality. Um, and I think, you know, the main needs are funds. Um, because with the funding, we can put that into a long-term investment pool or a local government investment pool where we can make interest on the money that we can use for conservation and stewardship over time. And it also provides the district flexibility so we can leverage

5:21 other opportunities from outside funding if we have funds available to us to do that. The district will be adding funds and FTE to our annual budget to manage the property, but what we lack is the investments for stewardship and water quality improvement work. I know that this is before the the board tonight an agenda item and I the board memo indicates uh that the staff recommendation is for inind investment uh to support the water conservation district in this important work. um the ENIN investment, the way Lisa is written in the memo, uh in some ways when when it mentions collaborative meetings and planning and those types of things, it makes it sound like basically the as we meet with Eb on things that we

6:07 already do, you'll just be deducting that from the ledger. And as you all know, when you own real property, you need you need real funding to manage your property. And so the ENIND uh proposal uh falls a little short of what we're hoping EW would be able to provide us. Um I think is that a warning? Oh, I got three. Oh, is that right? Yep. So um anyway, long story short, the funding that we were requesting could maybe be brought to us through extending the watershed restoration fee for four months rather than ENIND funding. and kind funding could work if we have direct control over the resources EWE wants to provide us. Um, but knowing that, I know that EWEB has priorities

6:52 and those resources we would be competing with. So, I just beg you and and hope that you'll support funding this important endeavor with the upper limit so conservation district as your partner. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Tim Hutton. Good evening, commissioners. My name is uh Tom Hutton. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, that's all right. I represent the bargaining unit of IBW Local 659. Tonight, many of our members are here in person, and you'll notice that we're all wearing union buttons. These buttons represent our collective concern over the ongoing erosion of workplace rights,

7:38 unchecked management behavior, and the failure of EWB's internal systems to protect its employees. This is not a new problem. There has been a long-standing mistrust of mis of management across multiple divisions, but recent incidents have amplified that mistrust and made it clear that internal accountability has broken down. Just weeks ago, several of our members were brought into an investigation meeting. Stewards asked directly for the topic in advance and were denied that information. The meeting subject was only disclosed once employees were seated in the room. That violates both the spirit of the intent of Oregon's public employees collected bargaining act. Representation rights are meaningless if employees aren't given the opportunity to use them.

8:26 Many of many of our members have followed the appropriate internal channels to raise concerns whether through HR, direct supervisors, or established reporting systems. But time again, those concerns are either ignored, dismissed, or worse, weaponized by management and used to justify retaliation. Instead of resolving the issue, the process itself becomes a tool of intimidation. This has created a pattern not of hurt feelings but of procedural failure and institutional breakdown. We are also gravely concerned that these patterns expose EWT to legal liability including potential claims of retaliation, discrimination, hostile work environment and contract violations. As elected officials, this board carries a fiduciary responsibility

9:11 to ensure that EW remains not only financially sound, but also ethically and legally compliant. Based on what we've seen, that standard is not currently being met. For that reason, I am formally requesting that this board authorize an independent third-party audit of HR's handling of complaints and investigations, compliance with PEKBA and CBA, disciplinary insurance, retaliation claims, and supervisory conduct. We are not here to fight. We are here to work, but we will not allow a culture of silence, intimidation, or procedural gamemanship to define our workplace. Thank you. >> Thank you. speakers.

10:08 >> Good evening. My name is Rachel McKinnus. I am a citizen of Eugene and a paying customer of the e webb. I've been here several times to express my opposition to the smart meter. Um again um the smart meter was installed on my home without permission. I do have the EMF signal turned off. However, I have continued to experience adverse health effects including difficulty sleeping and um difficulty focusing and breathing issues. Um, I am here to again implore you for your uh empathy for those of us in Eugene. I know I'm not alone, who uh do suffer health effects from the um dirty

10:58 electricity that the smart meter emits even if the signal is turned off. Um I have four children at home so I am concerned about that as well. Um, I'm here to ask for choice. I realize that we can't go back in time. You're not going to take the smart meter away, but I'm asking for choice for a very small percentage of the Eugene population that does experience these symptoms that you would just give us choice. Um, I know that, uh, I will continue to request that the signal is turned off. So that, um, it will need to be manually read each month. Um, I know that you are probably going to impose a fee at some point for that, even though

11:43 all these years we've had um, e-web employees come out and read the meters and have never been charged for that. I'm guessing that you've uh reduced a lot of personnel uh that does that because you now have the smart meter. Um but I'm asking that you would reconsider imposing that fee. Again, my neighbor is on disability. We share a house. Basically, there's two uh smart meters on our house. And so um that would be that's double the dirty electricity, double the EMF radiation. So, I'm asking for choice that you would give those again a very small population uh that are experiencing these adverse health

12:28 effects that you would give us choice of an analog meter. We have to have someone come out and read it anyway. Um I'm trying to take responsibility for my own health. I'm just asking for some support in that um from the city of Eugene that you would come alongside of those. This will just continue to get worse with time. uh these reports of sensitivities and adverse health effects with radiation are increasing more and more each year. It will just continue to get worse. So, at some point, I do believe you will have to address these issues. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. That concludes the numbers of speakers that have signed up. I will open the floor to commissioners for questions or

13:15 comments. Yeah, go ahead, John. >> Everybody's leaving. I just like to thank you for your presence and uh we'll deal with this in the proper protocol and I've been here for 18 years and I respect each and every one of you, but we have to do what we're allowed to do. So, we hear you. Thank you. Um, Carl, >> your your request for money, >> your request, as you know, I do I' I'd sell Carmen Smith to to help you down on the lower water. I will, but um, you know, we got some a lot of budget pressures and uh, as you know, you you you've sat on the other side of this conversation before, like tonight, the

14:00 city's asking us to take over their their fire hydrants, and that's a million bucks. And you know, it's so we we're going to have to balance a lot of these these choices and everything. And uh I've always been an advocate for clean water and especially close the closer we get to the intake, the more important to me it is. And so, uh we're going to have that discussion this evening and I know what the staff recommendation is and um we'll see what we can do. And Rachel's gone so I won't say anything. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Other commissioners? Uh I would just say for the record kind of um piggyback on what John said uh you know we're a policy setting board not a action board and so I would uh leave it to the

14:47 general manager to do what's right and if it he finds that he needs more resources or input from us I would hope that he would come to us. So that I will let Frank speak. >> Yeah. Commissioners, uh, appreciate it. Appreciate the comments. Um, have a great deal of respect for the work that the employees of this organization do. Um, when you have a, uh, a union, you have a managed relationship and there are tools of which you use to manage that relationship. Um, some of those are the collective bargaining agreement itself. Uh some of those have to do with with organizational processes, policies that we have, board policies, uh and the laws uh that apply to our our

15:32 relationships. And and we have to uh work with all of those. Uh we also uh when we at the management level hear things that warrant investigations, uh we do just that. We investigate. we look into it and we try to understand all of the various perspectives that are appropriate to make decisions. Uh and so uh we will continue to do that um and um try to understand their specific concerns um and work with the union. We have a lot of respect for the union and hopefully they have a respect for us even though we uh will probably likely not agree on everything. And so I would just add that context to it and appreciate the the fact that they showed up and provided um some comments and um

16:19 we'll we'll make sure that we're approaching uh issues fairly and appropriately. >> A reminder on protocol. So I'm contacted by a union member or or one of those people or an employee and they want they say they want me to listen. What's my role in that uh request? So, uh there's there's really nothing that um uh that commissioners can do as far as um I mean you can listen. Um there's a whole series of board linkage policies that um um grant the authority and in fact they restrict the the role of commissioners to make employment related decisions or um um um anything

17:08 other than really delegate uh issues like this to the general manager. Um and so while you can listen and sometimes it's very appropriate to listen and um provide feedback, there is no direct action that a commissioner can take relative to employment matters. >> I I just want to follow up on that. So for instance, they the the call was to have an independent investigation. Could we direct you to find an outside? I mean, again, I'm just trying to figure out our our roles and responsibilities and and uh

17:53 so in in some ways um I I work for the board collectively. Um and um the whole there's there's a series of be all policies, board linkage policies that that govern different aspects of of um the relationship between the board indiv board collectively at large the individual commissioners and the general manager. Um, one thing that um, you you could provide direction if if the board unil, you know, as a as a collective body decided that there was something that that they wanted looked into, that that could be a directive. Uh but I would also point out relative to employment matters there are state agencies who are independent um lines of

18:39 appeal you know bully for example that can look into employee complaints related to behavior and um and treatment by an employer. So um those mechanisms already exist and wouldn't necessarily be appropriate in in something like this. But um I do work for the board collectively. I would also have to evaluate um the opportunity costs um as well as the direct cost of any request that the board um directs me to consider. >> Thank you. Just wanted a little clarification. Anybody else at this point? Okay, we will move on to our next item which is let's see there was a note here to reopen public testimony at 550. Do I

19:24 need to do that? No, I don't believe we have any additional public testimony. >> Okay, then I'm going to move on to uh our next item which is approval of consent calendar A. >> Second. >> Any discussion? All in favor say I. I. Okay. Next is consent calendar B item number five. Take that under. >> Second >> discussion. All in favor? I. Okay. No items were removed from the consent calendar. So that leaves us to item number seven, the upper WAMIT soil and

20:10 water conservation district investment opportunities. >> okay. >> What was that? >> Oh, correspondence. Correspondence wasn't listed on mine. Yes, President Barovski, the because of the the protocol um relative to the

20:56 request and the potential action on this, we moved it to an agenda item and that was actually uh in response to uh Commissioner Brown's question regarding that. He he was correct. This this um looked like it was going to be a recommended motion um and the course of action, so we moved it to an agenda item. >> Okay. There wasn't any other correspondence that we needed to >> There's no other additional corresponding. Thank you. Okay, I will let staff take over.

22:00 So, we're we're here this evening to answer questions as it relates to the memo that uh what had originally been correspondence. Uh, and Karen can speak to uh the work that and I can speak to the financial impact. >> Okay, Tom, go ahead. >> You knew you were going to hear from me. Um, I, you know, I've always been the water advocate or and a water advocate. We all are. But, um, the closer we get to the intake to me, the more important it is. And I see the millions and millions of dollars that we spend up the river and we've never really spent a lot of money down, you know, Porch Creek and all these other things down there. And finally, we have an opportunity to do

22:46 that. And after reading the the Mckenzie River, the the state of the river report last time and I saw where all the problems are, the spills, the storm water, and everything else. Um I can't to me I can't think of a more important expenditure. I hate raising rates and whether or not we extend to me to extend the the fire recovery fee or we raise rates, you know, rates are full forever. This is just a one time. But, um, to do that, enough money to serve debt on on a on a million dollars, I don't think is that much. But, uh, to me, I can't think of a more important thing to do. and the stewardship of having somebody with Carl's background and history on hazelnut farming and the proximity of this property. Um, I would really really

23:31 really like to support their request. Um, and and and not in kind and I I know that that's not the recommendation, but that doesn't mean that we have to me we don't have to go by every recommendation. We can always deviate from that. And to me, I would very much like to see this supported financially. >> So, I can respond to that. This is a a property that's of high interest to us and we do support um wershed stewardship in that location. Our recommendation is given the nature of the other projects that we've had to put off because of rate impacts uh that

24:16 are a high priority for us, we feel that instead we can shift our budget that we already have without raising rates to accomplish the same thing. So in the recommendation we have working with uh the conservation district to come up with an IGA that could mean a number of things. um in kind meaning you know not just giving the funding because it would be our labor who would be overseeing the direction of some of that work. Um so we do believe we can come to an agreement that would meet the same intent. >> Is there a way we can even partially do this? I'm going to say, "Okay, we give 500,000 instead of a million because uh this is just like when we voted to acquire the Finwalk Bridge." We had

25:02 people on this board that said they didn't want to spend that money. Didn't think it was important. One of the most important acquisitions we've ever made in my opinion. This is even closer. And this isn't about the acquisition. This is about the stewardship of it. And uh and seeing how financial challenges are all over the board. and you know, ask me if I would rather take over the city of Eugene's fire hydrants or do this. I'll do this 10 times before I'll do the fire hydrants. And so that's where my priorities lie. So I understand your position and I'm just one, but that's my perspective. Frank. >> Yeah, Commissioner Brown. I I don't think that there's um any conflict from staff relative to the importance of the location, the uh the fact that it's um

25:50 to to testimony tonight. It's um it's a for it's a basically an an orchard. Um and um we totally agree with the location and the importance. I think when we look at the context of the fact that um um the the organization that we're dealing with here is talking about using that money to garner interest uh that's of concern to me. Uh we also know that that program is still evolving and developing and to write uh to commit to a in some ways a blank check for a number of years seems like it's um beyond what I personally would classify as good stewardship of the of the financial resource. It doesn't mean that we don't want to support that work. It

26:36 doesn't mean that we we would not consider it part of our our healthy farms clean water program and work with um Carl and his his organization to um provide good stewardship. Um it just seems like a stretch to us to commit to a number of years of just funding without being an active participant in what that funding is used for. And that was the basis of our recommendation. Other commissioners, zonia, Bendy, >> um, seems like this is a really strategic opportunity for us. I know that maybe the details haven't been flushed out yet, but um, something that

27:22 I generally um, really admire and appreciate about EW is that we do think strategically and when an opportunity comes our way that we um, figure out a way to to take advantage of it. And so, um, I can't remember exactly, um, what the what the timeline is for getting those funds, but like like John said, even if it's not the full amount, um, I do support funding this in some way. And, uh, maybe fleshing out the details a little bit more so that there's some more specifics that that it does feel like it's strategic on our part and not just giving a blank check.

28:11 I I really appreciate the thought behind it and have a an immense amount of respect for Carl. I served on the board when Carl was part of the e webb team here and so I I have a lot of trust there. Um but I also I do have a pause if it is funding sitting in interest. Um that was one thing that that stuck out to me in the during the testimony too. I I I agree with Commissioner Slothberg that, you know, I think maybe there just needs to be a little bit more conversation there around kind of how this how this works. I do want to support the project and um I appreciate all of the work that's already gone into seeing how we could manage it on our end by moving this project here and there. I mean, that this already shows a lot of

28:58 thought. um going into how we could make this happen. Um you know, do do we have to make a decision on this this evening or is this something that we can of have another conversation about? What's the timing of this? Um, Commissioner Carlson, I believe the request from um the um from the requester was by October 1st. Um we could spend some time working out more details. It doesn't have to be a um an absolute go or no go this evening. um we we could um commence again in um

29:43 September and potentially I think the target close date was o the 1st of October. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you chair. Yeah, I'm uh I'm in support of supporting our wersheds and and supporting our um our partners up river. Um, I think that there's uh I did not serve uh with Carl when he was here, but I've heard everyone else has, and the message of trust Carl seems to come through uh very very clearly. Um, I uh I I I am realizing that I think that the challenge that we have now is just more of a timing issue than a an intent or or a fiscal reality issue. Um,

30:31 I think that it sounds like my commissioners agree and I agree with with our fellow commissioners that that um supporting this is is of the interest of EWB and is of the interest of of our community as well. And so um if there is a if it does not harm anything to delay, then I I see no reason as to wait for maybe more details to come out to have a clearer idea or understanding. But um I I'm yeah I I just wanted to to flag my my support and acknowledge this as well. Thanks >> Greg. >> Yeah, I think this is valuable feedback. I think there were there were really two things that I I got out of the request. One is a certain degree of of um

31:16 commitment as part of closing the purchase which is where that October 1 date comes. and the other one was some shity around commitment to support the the the ongoing stewardship of the property over uh a number of years. So there were it wasn't just and that that was the reason that a resolution was requested. A resolution goes past um a particular budget cycle. And so um uh the organization was requesting for some degree of shity around that. And so those are things that we would have to consider between now and October 1st would be that this is not just a a

32:02 single year uh commitment. This is uh a programmatic commitment and that could be some combination of of financial and inind uh support. So we would have uh in essence um August and up to October to work out what those details would look like before presenting a resolution to the board. >> Thank you. Um so I have concerns about this um not about the project, not about what the good that it would do for our wershed and our partners. Um, the concerns I have is that the letter we got was we need help. We're going to

32:48 buy the upper the soil district's going to buy the land. We need help managing it and and maintaining and doing the stewardship on it. And it was five years for $200,000 a year, I think, was what it came out to be, a million dollars. Um, the water district is a is a taxing district and so they have ability to fund things. I can see us moving as a gap type of a funer, you know, saying, "Okay, you guys are going to buy it." And that first year, that's a big cash strain on your on your budget, and you may need some help in in getting over and putting in a management plan that

33:34 that you can do it. But for EW Webb to be managing somebody else's land when they have a a taxing district that they can use to do that gives me a little bit of pause. Um again I am in favor of the the project and I would like to see it move forward. I don't I didn't see what the management plan was. Are we going to cut down all the trees? Are we going to keep it running as a filbert farm? None of those details have been flushed out and the and the cost and the revenue sharing that's going to go back and forth. For me to make a vote on something like this, especially if we're committing to a five-year, $200,000 a year resolution,

34:19 I would definitely need more information. I would hardily be in favor of doing a one possibly two-year type of a a bridge management plan thing and then figure out some sort of a partnership going forward where some of our our people could do some of the work as in kind or whatever. But as of right now, just to say here's here's a million, we're committing to a million dollars over the next five years to a management plan that I haven't seen. I I have a little bit of of pause on that. Not that I have a problem with the property or with the good work that it would do for our water system as a

35:04 whole. So, that's some of the concerns that I have. John, >> thank you. I agree with what everybody said that we um ask staff to go back and try and work this out with the soil and water conservation, get a more refined plan and find out exactly what we're buying. But I just like to remind the board that we've done this before. When we sold the headquarters property, we're maintaining that park for the next 10 years for 50,000 a year. And and we didn't have a plan or anything. The city just said, "I need a half a million bucks." So we we agreed 50,000 a year for the next 10 years to maintain and mow that lawn down on the river at 500 East. So this isn't the president establishing thing. I mean we did that. It's not the same request here and I get the concerns, but I just know that we've done things like this before with with

35:49 less direction. And so uh I I think we get more direction and more finality of what exactly the ask is. Uh, I'm all for delaying this and and seeing if we can't, you know, I'm I'm sure that there's a way that this could be worked out, this deal could be made. >> Well, if if it sounds like we are going to pause for a little bit and let them uh kind of discuss further. I'm also curious this piece of property, I know um you know, it's right on the river. A lot of times there are restrictions on what can go in place um when a project like that leaves and I don't know if there's any I would just like to know what the options are. I mean if if something that very that's very industrial could be put back on that

36:35 land. I'd like to know that. Um I just I know from what I've experienced in watching the riverfront development in Springfield and what they're doing there. There are businesses that are right up against the water that are no longer allowed to be there anymore. And so I'd just be curious to know if there are restrictions outside of anything that happens here on what that property could have. >> Thanks. So, I think what I heard and I Frank, you can you can and staff can get back to me was that there's more questions that that this board would need to have answered before they could come to a

37:20 resolution? I I think that's kind of what I heard around the room. Um, so do you need clarification of what those questions are? What what how do you see this moving forward? I mean, I've got a few questions. John's got a few questions. He's got I I would rather not flush those all out here at the board in a in since we're four minutes in. Um how would you like us to proceed with this? >> President Barovski, I I don't need any summary of questions um at at this point. I I think that um part of part of what we're hearing are some of the questions we've had which is you know

38:05 what's the plan um what um um you know what role can we play uh in that plan to support um the upper will um district and um how does that blend with the other things going on. So, you know, those are those are things that we have to fill in the blanks on um and um talk with with Carl in more detail um and get more detail from quite honestly from Carl as to what the the plan is. Um uh and so um it seems a bit premature to act on a motion at this point, but rather to u dive into some of those details and come back uh when we have

38:51 more details to that we can present and um and whether that fits within the context of our normal budget or whether that's something outside of the the the normal budget and what the trade-offs are, those are conversations that we'll have as well. Um, great. Well, one thing that I would just like to say is that I'm super excited about being able to be partnering with the with the water district. There's a lot of work that is going to be need we're going to have to work together in the in the coming years and decades. Um, if Second Source ends up on the WAMIT, I know we're going to have a lot of different projects that we can use both of our our resources to help uh improve the the watershed as a

39:40 whole. So, I I hope that this I hope my comments that I made earlier aren't taken as not wanting to be a good partner with with the district because I think it's a strong thing. We've had a good partnership before they they got their taxing district and I think it can be even stronger now that they have are are better funded. So I will leave it with that and >> and I think we feel the same way at the at the staff level. We we want we and we totally understand the the value of of managing property um that close to our intake. Um, we uh want to make sure that we're adding and bringing the most value as an organization in the way that's most responsible to those who are paying

40:26 our bills. And and that's going to take a little bit more of a deeper dive. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> All right. Thank you. Thank you, Carl. Next up is ownership of fire hydrant. So, President So, President Barovski, commissioners, good evening. I did want to clarify one comment, uh, Commissioner Brown, that

41:12 that you mentioned earlier regarding the, uh, potential transfer of ownership of fire hydrants. Um, this is not something that the city, I feel like, at this point in time, is pushing on EWB. This is more of a collaborative discussion to see if there are opportunities associated um with that potential transfer. Um what we're seeking this evening from commissioners is um guidance um uh around the development of a potential resolution to launch into negotiations on this topic with the city of Eugene. Um the reason we're taking this approach is that um when you develop a resolution, it provides the opportunity for commissioners to put boundaries around what a negotiation might look like. And

41:59 so discussions and advice that we get from you this evening will identify some of the key questions and some of the areas of concern that we think uh might need to be incorporated into the presentation of a resolution to this board. Um, regarding the potential transfer of ownership, just some quick background. I I won't uh read this. Uh, this was all in the background. We're talking about just under 4,000 fire hydrants. Um, there's u it is pretty common that um municipals, municipal water organizations uh do own the fire hydrants and manage those hydrants as part of their assets. Um I will point out though that many uh

42:45 water utilities are also part of the city structure in a little different way than than um than e webb is under a separate board. Um and so we did commission a number of years ago and these conversations go back over probably a number of decades if you were to really dig into the archives long enough. Uh this discussion has uh come and gone through the years. Uh there are some some benefits um to e-web. Um I would characterize those as sort of efficiencies, protection of the water system. Uh there's a number of different things. It is it is connected to the drinking water system. Uh these particular appliances. Um we also receive a number of of complaints every year about cloudy

43:31 water, things related to the testing of fire hydrants, for example. Um it's it's not the full list of customer complaints um but it it is a portion. There's also some community value uh in potent in the improved maintenance, public safety, water quality um targeted service levels for how uh the the uh emergency water in this case um for for firefighting, fire suppression uh would be available, be used and how those assets would be would be managed. We also as part of the background material material identified a number of potential risks. Uh some of those um compliance related uh some of these have to do with how we would

44:16 negotiate uh potential transfer with the city of Eugene. Um how that is structured. Uh what kind of discretional immunity for example might apply. uh what kind of of um indemnity we would ask for from the city uh relative to uh their implementation of standards and codes throughout um our service territory. All those things matter um and um um are things that we would um include as part of our negotiation. Um we are looking um um um at the sort of the outer boundaries of this. Um if the city was not to contribute um to a finan financially to a transfer, there's some

45:03 other things we could potentially negotiate with the city relative to nondirect cash transfers, but value that we could potentially extract as part of our relationship with the city and how we operate. Uh but on the outside um $850,000 a year uh on the water side represents about a 2% uh revenue requirement or rate rate increase if you wanted to to call it an average rate increase increase. And that's based on the um what we felt was a targeted uh a good level of replacement rate um of roughly 60 per year, 60 hydrants per year to maintain uh the appropriate age um and reduce the the um the age of the

45:50 assets that were the oldest. And so, um, um, the the opportunity tonight is to get this on the table with commissioners, understand, um, what your your questions are, what your guidance would be, um, relative to us, uh, starting to develop a resolution so that we could incorporate u various um, details, questions, concerns. um either investigate those separately from a resolution or incorporate some of those as um boundaries to that would apply to um the negotiation and execution of a of a potential transfer agreement with the city. And so um with that um we'll send it u back to you uh

46:38 President Barovski and we'll get ready to get barrageed with questions. >> Okay, I saw Sonia in the queue. Okay. Well, I'll uh thank you uh for the opportunity. I I've said it before and I'll say it again. I trust e webb to manage things that have a high level of uh safety and and need for our community and protecting our community when we have more heightened need around fires is at the top of my mind. So I would love to see this happen but I would also want to see some uh assurances around sharing liability. There are concerns that you know we have

47:24 a lot of deferred maintenance and if there is some liability risk there can there be some shared liability if we have not gotten through our you know replacement schedule for those older ones that have not been taken care of all this time. I mean that to me says right there that that is a major problem in our community that we need to deal with and I trust e webb to man manage the infrastructure well because we do that every day. It's part of our wheelhouse. We have engineers with sig sigma training that know how to do this stuff. I trust us to do this. So I'd like to see this go forward. I would also like to see if we're getting a 2%, you know, rate change that that gets us a 2% change in silt. I mean, I we need

48:11 other funding to make this happen. Even if if we negotiate some sort of delay in reduction of the silt over time, I'd like to see us get some funding back for that. So, those are those are my uh comments. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay, >> we've heard silt and everyone gasped. Um, no, I uh I want to say thank you staff for bringing this forward and I agree with Commissioner or Commissioner uh Carlson that um uh moving forward with this is is something that's top of mind of me uh of myself. Um recently in my community, we had a a small fire uh at one of the apartment complex and so this is definitely top of mind. This was last

48:57 week, so um watching the fire department unspool the the uh the fire hydrants was very like, "Oh, hey, that's happening." Um I had a question. I recognize that Eb is um a trailblazer in many ways because we are uh the largest public utility in Oregon. Are there other public utilities that manage the h uh the fire hydrants um over other cities? Is there an example that we can follow elsewhere is my question. >> Sub desert. >> I'm not sure about sub, but as far as public util like public water utilities, most >> I mean almost 99% of them managed all of their hydrants. >> Gotcha. >> So we are uh an outlier in this arena.

49:43 Got it. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I uh I agree with Sonia. I think that that EW web does an excellent job with uh acknowledging safety and concerns and being very clear about the path forward and also that um I I was a little shocked to see the the city of Eugene's replacement rates. Um and I think that that's a that's a acknowledgement in its own that that this is a good conversation to have and and a good project to move forward with. So um I want to flag my support on this and and just say thank you for for this. I have now recommendations of of guidelines or or um guide bars for staff to to be cautious around negotiations. I think that this is a an open-ended question that I I

50:29 would support for you all. Thanks, >> Andy. >> Um I also think that this that that we should uh manage the fire hydrants. It makes totally makes total sense. Um, and also I do support um authorizing you to do some negotiate negotiations because I feel like um kind of all the risks that you've laid out are valid. Uh, and the financial piece I think is pretty tricky. It's like being given it's like you're given like a clunky ambulance and then you're in charge of saving people, but if the ambulance doesn't work, you kind of get in trouble. So, um I know

51:16 that the city is facing its own budgetary challenges, but I do feel that um there needs to be some agreement or something um because to put all that burden on us while we're already raising rates. Um it just things just keep piling up. It feels like we have a lot of a lot of pressures. And um while I think that this is really key and important for us to do, I would love to figure out a way that we're not solely responsible financially for it. And then the other piece is the um the regulatory piece. I would hate to see those regulations change. You know, they're not city's not in charge of the fire hydrants anymore and then they change the regulations. That would put undue burden on us.

52:04 Commissioner Brown. Okay. Um, yeah, I'm in favor of it. Um, as far as bringing it to Eb, it makes sense. It's the water. It's water, you know, for everything that that was alluded to in the background or and what was said tonight. Um, as far as the financial side goes, I'm not so worried about trying to claw back money from the city of Eugene. If the city of Eugene had money to replace fire hydrants, they'd be replacing more than 27 a year. Okay? That's one of the reasons why they're they're only doing 27 a year because they're financially constrained. our community. If if we went out to the community, if I went to

52:50 any of my customers and said, "It's going to be another what is what is 2% of a on on water?" Do we know what 2% is dollar-wise on an average bill? >> Give me a a guess. Yeah. >> My average bill is just over $30. >> So 2% is going to be less than a dollar. It's going to be pennies, right? If you went to any of if I went to any of my customers and said, "If I'm going to charge you another 10 cents a month to make sure that we have working fire hydrants, I don't think there's going to be any push back." And to to go to the city and say, "To make this work, you've got to give us money that they don't

53:36 have." I don't I wouldn't go I that would be not a deal breaker for me. Some of the other things that are important things that that Mindy brought up I agree with, but to have a working safe fire system at a 2% rate increase and being able to have the correct people doing the work on those. I talked to I talked to a a firefighter yesterday about this and he says there's one guy out there with a truck replacing these things, you know. So, we have the ability to do this more efficiently, better, and protect

54:21 our water system. And if that costs us my customers, a dollar a month, it's to me it's worth it. And so to to hinge this on we want to get back money back from silt or something like that. I I'm not leaning into that. I'm leaning into what's best for my community and my customers and and to me that's bringing them in house, paying what it needs to be paid and and moving forward. Now you can have it. >> I get a little different perspective. Um, I'm all in favor of bringing us in-house, but I'm not in favor of us taking on total financial responsibility. I I believe they have the money. They just don't have the priority. Um, I I too talk to firefighters, sitter counselor, and

55:07 other people. And um, this is not a line item budget in the fire department. They just do it. And uh, and the fact I think there would be public outrage if the public knew that they were not maintaining it. There's so many lowflow 100-y old fire hydrants that it's it's it's scary, especially in the south south hills to know that if we have a wildfire, there's going to be a lot of I mean, didn't College Hill almost run out of water when Civic Stadium burned? I mean, it came close to running out of water just for that one fire. Think if we had a wildfire. So, I mean, this isn't just that. So, I'm I would like to claw back some of the money, not not all of it. I would like to make it a joint venture because uh I'm not going to lose it over that. But I don't think that we should be 100% but you know a million dollars a year that's going to go up and this is not going to be a variable

55:52 thing. Once we take this on it's forever. We can never cut it from the budget because so right now we're delaying projects and everything. We're not going to delay fire hydrant replacement. That's a PR issue. And like I say, if this was public uh if more people knew about it, I think it would be it would be in the front page of the paper. Um, and so I'm all for moving forward and seeing if you can't carve out a way. I I appreciate what Sonia said about Silk. I mean, the fact that they get 6% and the ordinance says three, I still bargain about that. Uh, and so if there's a way we can claw back some of this million dollars a year and say we do a 1% rate increase because, you know, rates are exponential and they're going to go up every year with second source. And so when we raise rates for that and we add a 1% to that, it's going to be a ton of money. So, I'd

56:38 like and and the cost isn't going to stay at 850 a year. Um, so I'm all for it. Figure it out financially, but I don't I don't want to just turn around and take on 100% of the financial cost. >> Other comments? Frank? >> Well, commissioners, thanks. I appreciate the perspective. the um I don't think that conceptually we'd had concerns um about um you know the fact that most in fact almost all water utilities have this accountability and we appreciate the confidence in us to to manage assets. That is what we do. We we manage distributed assets. um the um probably

57:23 the um the detail around um liabilities, regulations, compliance, those are the things that um we would be most concerned with. Um in other words, holding someone else to a standard you're not maintaining yourself. Um you know, there's there's different codes and we would want to work into any kind of agreement that that those would be clear. Um I think um we're maybe less concerned with a a one time 2% um as opposed to which which then yes over time those are going to be um impacted by just typical inflation over time. Um but there may be other ways

58:08 that we could extract u some working relationship u value from the city of Eugene relative to how projects are managed. um other properties and things like that. So um but it sounds like what I'm hearing is that um conceptually there's confidence in the organization to manage these assets and manage them effectively. Um but the details matter and that um those details uh are ones that uh we'll want to spell out some of the areas in the resolution and then others we could potentially um even talk about uh through negotiations u potentially an executive session if we needed to. Um but um that's that's what I'm hearing and if if something is different let me know. Um, and we can

58:56 also check in in our one-on- ones if there's additional concerns or questions. But, um, >> Karen, did you have Karen or Deborah, did you have any else that would? >> Uh, one question that came to mind. So, this would only be inside of the city of Eugene. How do other areas that are surrounding that we serve water for manage that? Do they have contracts with the city to maintain that too, or do they maintain it on their own? um how does that impact um the rates of people who don't have it managed within I don't know it's not directly tied necessarily to I mean it is to the water but it also kind of isn't so how do we distribute that fee among our rateayers so those are my two questions

59:44 let me make sure I understand the question so like are you talking about like say city of Bonita how they charge for their hydrants >> it's all in their it be in their water rates. >> It's in their water rates. Okay. So, the city manages it in the city of Bonita. We also supply um ser we supply water to river road Santa Clara area. Um do we do they have I mean in their own water district do they pay for the rates up there for the hydrants or do they contract with the city to take care of it? I don't know. >> And we have two different um contracts with them. I'm looking at Chris Irvin, our water engineering supervisor. He may be able to answer that question. I don't know off the top of my head what those agreements say for hydrant maintenance.

1:00:38 >> I can just yell, but um one of the one of the districts pays the city to do it and I believe the other one paid us to do the maintenance, but they each own their own hydrants. Well, >> so in this process, we'll have to negotiate with them. If they're transferring maintenance, then we would have to work with them. If the city is no longer operating maintenance services, then we would have to think about that, too. And I believe we were only talking about the the hydrants that the city owns at this time. Is that correct, Chris? >> Yes. This only deals with the city-owned hydrants. So, it wouldn't affect the districts. Well, but if the districts are paying the city to maintain it and they're not going to maintain it anymore, would that how would that >> I think I think it would create a separate issue relative to um an

1:01:23 agreement um between e webb and a water district to perform the maintenance within the water district. If they're contracting with the city now, the city decides to get out of that business be then it would create a different relationship uh with the one water district that we have that we do not do that. So, it it's not part of an asset transfer, but it certainly creates another um um contractual relationship or opportunity, however you would want to look at it, um that we would have to fill. >> Okay. Yeah. I just wanted to point that out. And then on the rate front then for our City of Eugene customers, then I mean I guess the rate maybe it's so minimal in terms of the whole skewing of it. It's it's not a a massive change.

1:02:10 would just have the flat rate as we normally do. That the idea >> would be >> there would be a difference between city of Jane and and elsewhere unless it's a different district that we have a separate contract with. >> So through the cost of service we allocate cost to the appropriate customers. >> Okay. And we would we would look at that as we looked at developing the water districts uh rates that that was not necessarily a charge that applied to them. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Other comments? The only thing that I would say is if and when this this transfer goes through, I would welcome it to go on the

1:02:57 front page of the paper that EW is taking over ownership of the the fire hydrants and is making our community safer. That would be something that I would lean into. So with that, anybody else? All right. Thank Thank you. >> Thank you, commissioners. You can stand up. Next up is the quarterly reports. >> President Baroski, commissioners, uh good evening once again. There's two parts to this um particular part of the agenda. The first is a kind of a recap of where we are year-to- date in 2025. um this is relative to just general

1:03:42 operations as well as um to our uh annual goals that the board approved in February. And then there's a second part uh which is um some uh proposed revised goals. These were introduced to commissioners uh last month. We did make a couple of modifications relative to some feedback we received. Um but basically um taking a look at the work uh happening across the organization and um uh developing a sustainable business model to be able to um continue that work revise some of the goals. Um we'll start uh really with the the year-to-day performance. Um I think financially uh

1:04:28 both utilities, the water and electric, we are required by statute to uh report those uh separately. Um pretty good net position financially in particular on the electric side compared to last year when we were uh roughly u more than 20 million um behind the budget at the end of the first quarter for a number of reasons. We're um very pleased that we're not in that particular situation again this year. uh we do have um um um better you know our safety metrics um are are in good shape in particular one of the things that is is a good sign is that the good catch reporting this is the preventative work basically you could call those close they used to call them close close

1:05:13 calls in the old days now it's uh good catch reporting uh really um twice what our normal average of those is lots of opportunities um for uh improvement for listening to to our employees on a number of fronts there. Uh reliability uh both water and electric are are generally in good shape. There's a couple metrics here and there that we're that we're monitoring. Most of those are are benchmarked relative to either APA, American Public Power Association on the electric side or American Waterworks Association uh on the water side. Uh and then uh quite a bit of customer activity relative to uh the number of calls, the customer assistance. Uh we are keeping a

1:05:59 close eye on Liheep uh relative to its future um and how we're budgeting that for next year. Um and we're uh just a little under 50% roughly 40% of the energy efficiency target for the year, which this time of year is is about where we tend to be. And so a lot of just operational activities um pretty much in in pretty good shape as well as some of the project work that's going on uh relative uh to the goals. Um we um continue to uh look at how we're reporting operationally. Um in the um background memo relative to the new goals, there was a section on management reporting uh

1:06:45 and what types of reporting that we will do both those required by by policy as well as what we think it's important to um daylight for the board and the public. um our most of our goals um from relative to uh secession plan. The really one of the the big lifts for the board in the first half of the year was um waiting through all the details with staff on the Bonavville contract and the product options there. Um, I'd say that that was just a 2025 project, but as you know, most of you started that work in 2020, 2021, um, and have uh, waited through all kinds of of, uh, charts and graphs from from our power planning group and

1:07:31 eventually um, ended up making a decision and we have communicated that to Bonavville and our goal will be to sign that contract by the end of the year that will commence in in 2028. Um we've also um are looking and making progress on the the details and the data analysis associated with limited income as well as um a lot of the segmentation work that we'll be presenting later this year to the board relative to some of the new goals uh where we're not just looking at limited income but we're also looking at the the owner occupied versus rental and how those overlap and how those overlap with the the size of the bill. there's a a VIN diagram that would um you're looking for overlap between

1:08:16 those three things. And so we're making progress there. Uh we're also um a little bit um I I would say I I said these are below target. Some of them are below target um because there are certain things that we um are doing this year and certain things um such as there's some we're putting on putting off any residential demand charge. some of there's some technical prerequisites in our system that we have to to make sure that we're we're doing. I think the same associated with with prepaid for example there's some things associated with um the customer portal and being being able to present real time data in that portal to make that effective. Um prepaid is not effective if you can't

1:09:01 see the real-time consumption that you that is is occurring. So there's some some prerequisites there. And then the asset management was kind of an intentional decision to focus on the the the real key areas of the electric um operational asset management plans, the master plans associated with that which also include forecasting um and do that for water and electric. We were going to also include um u the information systems asset management portion of that. Um we we think given the resources going into our enterprise systems that that will push be pushed off just a little bit so that we can concentrate on electric and water. Uh and then we are

1:09:46 goal seven and goal eight. I think I mentioned goal eight where we're really looking at u creating uh a data warehouse where we can use our own internal data around customer patterns, customer behaviors, mix that with premise data. um some of that included at a high level in the demand side potential assessment that was part of the Bonavville program. Those those are both progressing um but will be incorporated into um into the new goal structure and we'll get to that here in just a minute. Um it was a rather lengthy report. There's a lot of great data in in the report. Um I won't I won't go through the I don't remember how many. It's typically 80 pages. I'm not sure if it was it was roughly that this time. Um really appreciate staff

1:10:33 and all their their dashboards, the all the information about the demographics of our workforce. Uh lots of information in there where we're at with projects, everything from from College Hill to the the Jessen substation. Um lots of information. um and um would be happy to uh answer any questions or or get any comments from the board on that the first piece of this which is a a backward cast at the first half of 2025. There's lots of of staff in attendance. So, um feel free to ask any question about any detail whatsoever and we'd be happy to take a shot at answering those.

1:11:18 Okay, I will open it up. >> Great report. I don't have any questions or other comments. I just really appreciate all the work that goes into it. It really helps give us a snapshot of each of the the pieces. So, I know that it is a an enormous amount of effort to put it together, but it really does help give us a piece of mind knowing where where the organization is at since we can't be here in it dayto-day like you all. Thank you. Other comments? Yes. Yeah, >> I I just want to make a comment on that. I uh I know that um staff puts a lot of effort into it, so I appreciate your comment. Uh Commissioner Carlson, I would also say when you do that, it's a really good opportunity to kind of draw

1:12:03 a line in the sand and say, "Where are we?" And so it's um it's effort, but it is valuable effort and it causes us to really think and ponder about where we are and every once in a while taking a step back to do that u is important. Um and so it is work. Appreciate what staff does there. Um more to come. We will we will continue to refine this as we especially as we get into new goals and new benchmarks and some of those things. But um it's also for um a good cause, >> right, Mindy? >> Um we have so many things going on in the organization right now. So it's really great to see that for almost

1:12:48 everything we're on target and even for the couple things that were below target, they're kind of intentional. So um I really appreciate that. And then um also thank you for keeping the graphics in because it makes it really easy just to first do like a quick read through it. I so I know we're changing the way that we're going to be reporting and things like that, but keep those graphics because they're helpful. >> Definitely appreciate that and I think that came up last time from uh Commissioner Carlson who was actually out in the virtual world last month. Um it's definitely important. I was thinking more like emojis, thumbs up, thumbs down, but you know that's we we'll stick with the dials for now. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Can I like not support emojis? Yeah.

1:13:33 >> Can I thumbs down that concept? Yeah. Um >> I'm sure there are some real creative ones that we could put in there, but I they might not all be appropriate. >> Well, why is energy supply a Santa Claus emoji? It's so bizarre. No. Um thank you so much for this. I I want to I have no questions. I I just want to acknowledge um the hard work that's put into this and and agree it gives us a great snapshot. It helps us clearly understand and um of what what's going on and I also just recognize that this is the finished product of um so many conversations, so many staff input. So um I just really want to acknowledge you know your hard work and the hard work of the team behind this as well. Um and truly I just I I want to highlight yesterday um I had a question of where is Eb on the right design conversation and it was a perfect moment to say oh

1:14:18 you know this is where we're going and this is where we're at. So truly I mean this comes at the you know in continued conversations it's great um just for our work as well and also your work so it sounds like so um just want to say thank you and and appreciate you >> John. So thank you. I I do really appreciate this format. Um just a couple questions. You know, I I gave a premeating question about Burlesson project and we 7.5 million bucks to date, but that's a $40 million project that we kicked down the road. I mean, it just I've heard that number before. I just want to kind of refresh my memory of what the total project cost was or the anticipation was. Yeah, Commissioner Commissioner Brown, part of the um the original est for that

1:15:03 was because we had to um in in this description of phases and eventual end use, we had to make some forecasts um relative to the final permitted enduse design. Um right now we're looking at the first two phases and the next phases will be based on a combination of of financial uh ability and also the need. Um there were five phases in total. I think those were 20 25 million if if I remember 40 sounds a bit high. Um but that is not uh approved or expended until we identified the need um as part of our normal budgeting process, our capital planning. Um, right now we're sticking with phase one and phase two. >> Okay. And remind me again the threshold

1:15:48 for the contracts. Is it 100,000 that comes to the consent calendar or more? >> I believe it's 150. >> 150. Okay. >> Right. And then we are obligated in our reporting to re report anything between 40 and 150 on our quarterly report. >> Okay. And lastly, I I've been on the side of numerous conversations between people that have non-owner occupied rental properties and they're still having some challenges with the billing and and I assume that we're continuing to work out those glitches. I like I think that autopay expires after two years no matter what. >> We'll look into that specifically. I heard you mention that. I was listening I was eavesdropping on a conversation. We're continuing to work on um on the system basically the the functionality

1:16:34 of the the system. Um that's part of the reason that we're we're taking this period of time is to to make sure that that functionally um it ends up where we want it to be. That's a continuous improvement process and we're in that now. If there's something specific um that you're hearing and then please pass that on to us. We'll make sure it's >> for now. I'm staying out of it because I just I'm just BCC and and so I'm just seeing what's going on and I just, you know, it's been a dialogue between some customers and and our customer service. And so far I'm I'm pleased with the responses I'm seeing, but I'm kind of challenged with some of the things I'm hearing about, like I say, if you have an autopay and and and it it expires automatically after two years if if you're if you're a landlord or a tenant

1:17:19 or whatever. And and then to redo that process with the credit card is not easy. I've tried to do it once or twice myself. >> Yeah. And absolutely and and even if you don't feel like you have all the information, if if you're hearing a particular description of a case example, those are we do want to hear those because we want to make sure they're in our project list. Okay. So, >> all right. Thank you very much. That that's good. I appreciate it. >> Quick followup to Commissioner Brown's question. I I did um get reminded that yes indeed the total price for Burlesen with the entire buildout, all the buildings including the training center, all the parking, lighting, all of that was 45 million. >> I stand corrected. Your memory is better than me. He's not >> mine. It's better than mine too.

1:18:04 >> Never forgets. >> Um >> so my cames are um twofold. one, thank you for the report. Thank you for the the dials um and all the work that staff puts in on this. I will be very honest with you. We get these quarterly. I dig into probably two quarters of them, you know, digging into the appendix this and and that's why I don't have a lot of questions on this one. Um I did go through and read through it. the the uh the dials help me know which ones I want to dig into a little bit more. Um and I that doesn't uh diminish

1:18:49 the amount of work that is put into getting these and I I really appreciate the work that goes into these. But um on this one, I did the executive summary and read I read through them, but I I stopped at the appendixes. I didn't I didn't read every appendix. So, just will put that out there and uh let you know thank you for all the good work. Anybody else? Okay. Now, you want to move on to the second? >> We're not going to quiz you. Um, President, >> I'll quiz you kind of by I guess default protocol. What we've kind of narrowed in on was um while these are quarterly, we'll probably do the first quarter and the and the third quarter via correspondence and see if there's any questions and then this one and the year

1:19:35 end we'll spend a bit more time going through the details with the board on. So that's kind of what we've if you've noticed the agenda planning that's kind of how it's been been structured and I think that kind of makes sense. >> Thank you. So >> this one and then the year- end one, when would that fall? That would be in >> It's actually in March. So we we go through, we close the books. Um we're it's probably still in an unodudited phase because we're right in the middle of the audit, but it's it's usually >> um presented. There's Yeah, it's usually in March. So um that'll be the year end. >> Great. Just thinking about you said year end timing. I thought h that budget

1:20:21 meeting and that packet is so large. >> Yeah, it will we'll avoid that >> middle of that too because nobody will read it then. >> Well, that's so true. So, uh, >> part two is is really to, uh, get commissioner's approval for a set of of goals, um, based on the work that that we, um, initiated really last year and then the executive team uh, dove into more and more this year. It's part of uh, a sustainable long-term business management system and process. There's a there's a workforce development component, a strategic component, and then a continuous improvement for operations um component. Um the the

1:21:06 goals will tend to be around the strategic compass. There's a number of pieces of feedback here. um a number of different tools associated with it um that have to do with um what we highlighted in the background as far as an X matrix really that describes how these goals align uh in the near term with with the long-term strategic objective and then there will be scoping plans, bowling charts, recovery, there'll be quarterly reporting. So this is um will be uh familiar in the in the sense that um you'll get exposure to where we are with these as well as our operational management reporting which is um things like sad and safety reliability line breaks per mile the

1:21:52 ocean numbers you know those things will continue um the the result was there were there were 18 goals that we're asking for your approval on there is a a sort of a I'll I'll say a bit of a decoder ring or a road map on the on the right side uh which is um how these mapped to the original goals approved in February. Um it this is work that is taking place. This is uh a bit of a restructuring so that there's better alignment to not just what these goals are now but how they relate to what you'll see for next year as well as um themes over the five years. for example, rate design is a is a theme that we're

1:22:37 looking at and evolving, but there's actions we're taking place this this year. Um, and so we uh we do plan to uh provide you with the dials again for these. Um, and and while it looks like a big jump from 8 to 18 goals, that um if if you really read closely those original eight, there was like two or three subcomponents to those. So it in many ways it's it's uh roughly the same but we also this is work that is taking place across the organization. There are there are groups and teams of people working on these u and this is a way to really align those o over the course of time and do it in a way that can be sustained and work with the board so you

1:23:23 can see things come and go and you know where they contribute. Um um there is one that I would point out um and this came up last month um the very bottom one there where we we actually incorporated to really go after the effectiveness of both the limited income and dependent customer segments. And the reason that we combined those is that we want to make sure that we're really clear on our segmentation and where there's overlap between limited income, the type of residence, owner occupied, and the size of the bill or the affordability component. So when you think about a a vin diagram, there's some point where it's limited income, high bill, renter, and those are the,

1:24:08 you know, understanding that data, some of which we have, and some of which we're trying to figure out where we can acquire. That's why those are combined, but it did address uh an area of interest for the board. We want to do that in a in a very u uh logical and data driven driven way. And that was feedback based on last month. So, we really appreciate that. Um, and then there was uh one emerging one uh had having to do with the determination of the McKenzie Valley Service Territory. Um, that's one that was not uh on the list in February. And so things are um evolving and being assessed there. And so, um, with that and all the background that came along with it, we would, um,

1:24:55 love to get your approval on a motion to revise the goals and, um, and then incorporate those into the quarterly reporting along with the management um, reporting that I mentioned in the memo. Some of those are required by policy. For example, um the contracts report that I mentioned is is in board policy between um 40,000 and 150,000. That's the community investment report. There's a number of them that are in there that the the EL1 capital reports. So um these would be uh on top of that reported quarterly and would love to get your approval, answer any questions, have a discussion. Sonia >> move to approve revised 2025 annual

1:25:40 goals based on implementation of e web business management system >> discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um I really like these goals. I think that um while there's maybe with the exception of the um of the McKenzie Valley service territory, there's nothing new or we haven't seen before, but I do feel that the format and the way that you've um laid everything out is a lot easier to follow and to track. I'll speak for myself, especially for me where I'm not in it every day versus um the goals that we had before that were much more

1:26:26 broader and encompassed a lot of things. So, for me, these goals work a lot better. Obviously, they work for you because you guys are doing the work and you're proposing this, but I really like this this format. >> Thank you, Commissioner. I I I will say one thing and I know you're in the middle of a motion so I don't I don't want to interrupt that but the the one thing that when you look at the next layer down so it I think that's a really important organizational component that the board will see in the reporting which is okay here's the goal here are the specific measurable actions and deliverables associated with that goal and so at a staff level we now have And I want to say I don't remember the exact

1:27:11 number but 34 specific deliverables. So some of them support multiple goals but 34 deliverables that we have action plans for that supports those goals. And so it's really deploying throughout the organization. This is the actions that are supporting our goals that then support our long-term strategic objectives. And so it's its goal is to connect the dots um as as uh as we progress. Thank you. >> Uh Tim. >> Yeah, thank you chair. Yeah, I commenting on goal number nine in particular the um uh for existing income and uh for limited income and uh tenant

1:27:56 custom submits. I wanted to acknowledge that at the beginning of the year when we were discussing goals that there was a genuine conversation from uh Commissioner Carlson about separating and specifically focusing on tenant uh relationships with our our public utility. And I just want to acknowledge that that that that conversation has continued forward and and I want to just appreciate that um especially in this goal that uh there isn't an assumption that limited income and tenant are the same category that those could be two different categories that do have different needs and that both of those needs need to be approached and acknowledged. Um, so I just wanted to to call that out of a conversation that happened in January, February that is continued to to be acknowledged and

1:28:42 pushed. So, thank Morris. I I totally agree with that that those those are separate but related things that need need their own degree of attention. And the third component that we've we've added in is the the size of the bill component. Just because you're in in a rental situation, you your bill may be higher or lower. it income is separate from the size of the bill versus how the the the premise is classified. So we we really wanted to look at those interrelated things so that we can understand the objectives and the investments that we're making um relative to those those things. >> Um yeah, I'm I'm fully in support of this motion. The one thing that I

1:29:27 that I will bring up as far as connecting the dots, there was a uh a chart in the AIS that um look this way and you had to look this way and then you had to look this way. I couldn't do it. You know, I I would go, okay, this one I've got to look down and say, uh and it was very small. And then I had to go and see which dots went to that one. That chart doesn't work. Um, and so I would I would implore you to find some other way to figure that out, whether it's colored dots, >> go to this or that. >> Yes. >> But I'm just I'm just giving you input. It I couldn't I I started doing that and

1:30:13 I got through three of them and I said, "I'm not going to do it." And I I would I would throw that away. So, it's just constructive criticism, but that chart did not work for me. >> That constructive criticism taken. We we've had a number of discussions about colors, which I shot down. Um, but I'm being overloaded. We we'll have great big charts also. Um um yeah, there's well, >> okay, >> we we appreciate that. Um but it's also part of you know we we do emphasize physical safety and it is a way that that you can get some stretching in uh before meetings. So >> that's just >> but it just it doesn't work that that does not work. I'm sorry

1:30:58 >> in partic I I get it. >> Okay. Do you have one more comment? >> She's going to suggest there there was a display that you had up here that was more horizontal that I think is easier because all of the words were the same direction. Right. >> So, if you could just turn it and then repeat it on multiple pages, that might be easier digest as a board. >> Okay. >> Let's vote. >> All right. Any other discussion? All in favor? >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, commissioners. >> Next up is general manager transition plan. Well, commissioners, um, in the the background memo that I sent you, um,

1:31:45 basically and and I have announced this internal to the organization, um, also had a number of discussions, um, um, with the executive team that, um, I will be planning to end my, um, have my last day at Eb sometime in the second quarter of 2026. Um the reason for announcing it now is to give the board uh the opportunity to work with Dedra Williams u and uh throughout and really in in whatever process that you all decide to recruit and um negotiate and on board my replacement. And so, um, I'm smiling at

1:32:34 this point, but I know there's there is a lot to do, uh, as I I think, um, commissioners mentioned, and so, uh, plan to be quite busy and engaged for, uh, the a number of of upcoming months until that that transition happens. But um um wanted to give you the ample opportunity to to plan and work with Dedra and and others. And so um I suspect that we'll have to take a a a close look at agenda planning and what that means. And um it's it's an important decision. It's it's been an honor to work with you, but I don't want to say too much about that now because there's a lot of work still left. So um this is just a formal um external to the

1:33:21 organization announcement that that's that's my general plan. I've left it a little bit flexible um as far as exact date so that um u really depending on the on the recruitment and the timing and and what's going on. So I I can be a bit flexible and and work with the board on that. comments, questions. John, >> having the next one will be the fourth general manager. Having been through three and been through this process several times, um I know how timeconuming it's the most important decision we'll ever make, but um how timeconuming this is and how I I mean, you look at our future agendas right now, we're we're negative on time and we've got a lot of emerging stuff coming up, huge uh things that are going to take a lot of time. So, I would hope

1:34:06 that we could get way ahead on the scheduling because this takes a lot of a lot of board time and uh and and a lot of you know, we can't we got to get this right. And so, I just would emphasize that um we we get the schedule out and start scheduling these meetings now because um it's hard enough to get the five of us and and together and knowing that we'll all always have to do this together. It's um it's a process that I hope that we can stay ahead on. Uh it'll be an interesting thing to do. >> I did provide um some background historical information to to Dedra on the last process, how many meetings it took, um how many executive sessions

1:34:51 versus uh public sessions, the the number of rounds of recruitment and interviews it. And that process did use an external uh nationwide recruiter. So she she has all that background and would probably uh get um President Barovski and Vice President Schllothberg to just meet directly with Dedra and look at what um what that schedule looks like or you can work through me. I can facilitate that. Andy, >> um, I think it would be helpful for like a maybe a little orientation or something for the whole board to know what that process looks like because we only have one of five of us who's been

1:35:36 through this before. I'm assuming that most of us don't know what that process will even look like. So, um, to kind of get a head start on it, just a little primer of what that what that is, I think would be really helpful. Um, and also, does this mean that we don't have to do your performance review in Yeah, >> March. >> I I think that's a good idea. I I don't think we should do my performance review. Um that's that'll that'll save some time right there. So >> no, I did the the first the what I recall from the first um the the last recruitment was the very first meeting the board talked about process and what kind of process they wanted to do

1:36:22 whether they wanted to use an external recruiter to what degree they wanted to to make those choices investments whether the board and I don't recall whether um Commissioner Brown would would know whether In some cases, you can have two board members as a I don't want to call it a subcommittee who can also be part of that um in a little bit more hands-on way. I don't know if that's appropriate or the board would want to do that. But those are the very first meeting is probably um to review and discuss the process that this board would like to use.

1:37:08 >> I appreciate you giving us time. Um, not looking forward to this and appreciate, you know, all that you've done for the organization. So, thank you for sticking around and helping us get through this process. I'm not looking forward to it, but we'll we'll make it work. We'll make it work. And, um, yeah, I agree with um, Commissioner Schllothberg on, you know, what does that even look like? what are the options available for us to choose from and the costs associated with it? What has in the past led to success? I mean, it's all about, you know, getting the the right pool of candidates and then having enough opportunity to be able to vet them in a way that really matters um and is is valuable for the organization. So I'm also curious, you know, at what point do is is there a

1:37:57 level at which staff are involved in giving feedback? Maybe it's inappropriate. I don't know. But those are the folks dayto-day that know how to like run the operations. And so for me, you know, as we go through this, I I'm curious how we, you know, how there are opportunities for that as well. Yeah, >> thank you, Chair. Yeah, I uh I wanted to just also share my appreciation for time and and recognizing you you could have given us a just a 90-day written notice, and I appreciate you doing more than that because this would have been a pretty challenging process for in three months to do. So um I yeah I just want to echo um uh uh the hope for more time

1:38:44 and as much time as possible and the the um approach is is extremely important as as much as the discussion is and and the framework in which we're having this conversation um and um uh I know that this will be a conversation uh as we go forward but just appreciate and acknowledge your work as well. So thank you. >> Thanks. Thank you. Um, so I have a couple, I guess, questions and maybe direction. I don't know. Um, so the city of Eugene's going through a very similar process. They're they're looking for a new city manager. Um, and I've been following that. So the process that they went through is they did want

1:39:29 to go do an external search. And so they the first step of that was vetting the search firms. Um and so I'm just wondering if I I mean I I personally would like to do a nationwide search. I don't know what the rest of the board feels like and and that's something that we'll come down to after that first meeting, but would it be appropriate to give direction to to our our human resource people to at least find out the apt appetite for the head hunters or the recruiters that are out there, the firms that do this for a living because that was the first step that the city went through. They said, "Okay, we need to

1:40:15 find the best recruiter." And they whittleled that down and then that recruiter will go out and and bring in candidates and do that. I just don't want to wait be waiting months and months to go through that process when we could m perhaps get get that process at least going um to vet some of the recruiters so that next month maybe there or there's she has a list that says okay these are people that do this I don't know I just I've seen the the process going and I can see months upon months being burned up in the process So, I just would like to lead into that.

1:41:00 >> It's this one. >> Okay, there we go. >> Um, thank you for that that uh comment and question. I think we're uh staff is absolutely aligned with that. We want to uh uh bring options for you so that we can uh you can select a uh a recruiting partner as quickly as possible. We're already starting on that. Um we're working with our purchasing team to look and see how we can expedite um the selection and contracting of such an entity uh while staying within the governance rules of of e webb. So I think there's some ways that we can do that. Um we just need a little more road time to get that. I think uh we will have some recommendations and options for you by the next time we talk.

1:41:46 >> Okay. So that would be so you don't need to request us to get give you the authorization for requests for proposals from those people. That's that's just kind of I'm trying to figure out what the the mechanism is with this organization. >> Um I believe that we have mechanisms in place that will allow us to um begin this work and and bring a uh recommendation. >> Okay, great. Doc, I just mentioned I I think we've used the same recruiter in the last two recruitments, and Associates out of Denver and a lady by the name of Laney Prrowse. And why do I remember her name in that company? Because to me, they were excellent. They did an incredible job. And so, um, you know, I'm just saying that uh we've done it before and I think we did okay in the last couple of selections and so uh you

1:42:32 know, but I know that you have a process you have to go through and everything else, but um it'll be a discussion that we'll all have. Other comments or questions? All right. I think this will be probably be a recurring agenda item for the next several months. Um, >> and it wasn't listed on the goals either. I guess it's sort of emerging. I probably should have had 19 goals. Um, but >> I think I think transition is one of >> Oh, yeah. We could we could call it that. >> Yeah. >> You're a good employee. >> That's true. for now. >> Uh okay, with that other questions or comments, we will let that go. We'll be in touch and move this process forward.

1:43:22 Next item is future board agendas. That's you, Frank. We're just going to put >> If you have them, >> yeah. Um we've got um a number of things coming coming up including um tour of the lower river that's been on on the plate. Um I know you're out uh for uh September. Um a few things following up from this meeting. Um um just just a number of things and um we'll look for incorporating potential times for executive session and recruitment and that type of thing. those will be be either things moved around or or added in. Um, and so just

1:44:07 continues to evolve, but the the agendas are a little they they float around a little bit as the president and vice president and past uh understand. Um, but if you had any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. >> I just have a a question. It doesn't really go to the agenda, but um when is the Sierra Pacific contract coming up and is that something that would be on future agendas or is that handled internally? >> Um it's likely at a level that it would come to the board. >> Okay. >> Um it's um I believe it expires >> middle of next year. So um we are actually having discussions with them um

1:44:52 now. >> Okay. So yeah, I just didn't I didn't notice that on there and I just was wondering where where we'll land on that. >> It may end up being a a management pulled consent item. So it would be probably under a consent calendar, but we may pull it off as its own agenda item um depending on the on how many months we end up negotiating. That'll determine the value and and some of the other things, pricing. Okay. Other questions or comments about the agendas? Okay. Board wrapup. >> So, I just have a general question. Don't need to answer it tonight, but when are we going to finish AMI?

1:45:39 We've been at it quite a while. >> And I mean, when are we going to say it's implemented? >> I think on the electric side, we're down to just um exceptions. So, I would say it's 98% deployed on the electric side. Plus, I mean, we're we're just down to weird exceptions. >> We're behind on the water. >> On the water, um not the quite quite the same driver um as electric as far as just the dynamics of getting reads. Um um we are doing that inhouse. So, we did not contract that out. So, it's a little bit of a slow slower role and it's a more complex installation. And the last I heard we were 60%.

1:46:24 >> Sorry, we should be done by the end of next year. >> So we're 2026. I mean, if somebody asks me when are we going to have full implementation of AMI, I would say probably at the end of 2026. >> Yeah. For water and electric. Electric is essentially done. >> We Yeah, but we don't we we're not turning them on and we don't have the features to, you know, the consumers can't prepay and uh look at where they are in their bill and things such as that. So >> yeah, the the meters themselves, the collection of the data, um the the work taking place now is um the access to the data and integration with the customer system for um better tracking, better customer um presentation and that kind of thing. So that's that's taking place as far as the EES work, the enterprise

1:47:09 system work. So that part of it is taking place. >> Thank you. Other comments or questions in board wrap up?