EWEB Board of Commissioners — October 7, 2025

0:03 Everybody, welcome to the October 6 Eugene Water and Electric October 7th, excuse me, Eugene Water and Electric Board meeting. Call this meeting to order. My name is John Barowski. I'm the president this year. Start off with agenda topic one, which is agenda check. Does anybody have any additions or subtractions or adjustments to the agenda? Seeing none, we'll move on to item two, which is items from board members and general manager. Uh we'll just go around the room. We'll start with Tim. >> Yeah, thank you, chair. Um I just wanted to mention uh this past month has been a month of resiliency with the staff of going to Blue River with the water team

0:49 um and seeing the progress that was up there and also still the amount of work that needs to be done. Um, and then also attending the Kennedy Middle School uh opening for the emergency water. Um, God, there's a word I'm missing. Oh no. Um, but uh it was really great to It's hard to have those conversations about resiliency and emergencies, but so much of our community was was there and ready to have that chat and be prepared for it. So, um, well and truly, I want to just thank the staff for allowing me to tag along for for those events and and see the great work that they're doing. >> Great. Thank you, Mindy. Um, I went up river for the joint e webb uh lane electric meeting and there were about I think around 25 to 30 people. I

1:34 can't remember what it said in the report there. Um, and it was just a presentation by both utilities about the possibility of um, Lane Electric taking over that service territory. And I thought it was a good presentation. There were lots of good questions and I'm sure there's more to come soon. And I speaking to that, I did notice last night I was going through YouTube and that did make it onto YouTube. The slide presentation's on there and the audio. So if anybody else wants to look at it, I I started into it and then it was like Mindy did a great job up there. Sonia, >> I just wanted to also thank staff. Wow, that is much louder than I expected it

2:19 would be. I I wanted to thank staff as well for the uh Kennedy uh uh well opening. It was really great to see community members out there and um lovely having Tim speak and represent you web. So thanks. >> Um I would just like to say thank you to Mindy for running the meeting while I was gone last month. I appreciate that. Um, other than that, I did attend a chamber of commerce. Wasn't an economic forum, but it was a forum on the forest pra forest industry and how it affects our economy or what was on fire on the fires and how fires affect all of us and what we're what the state and the feds are doing to help

3:06 mitigate and improve their firefighting things. I think Sony was there as well. Um, it was it was quite informative. Some really smart and articulate people in there and so that was good. All right, Deborah. >> Thank you. Uh, so speaking of fire, fire season is officially over and we have return to normal settings. Uh, and then I just also wanted to call out that February 5th through the 11th is uh, public power week. Uh we're celebrating along with approximately 2,000 other community-owned uh notfor-profit electric utilities across the country. Uh so I want to

3:52 thank all of our dedicated employees whose daily commitment is what powers this community. I also wanted to thank um you all our board members who voluntarily uh serve as stewards of our public mission. And then uh lastly, the customers who support us with their partnerships from uh from emergency preparedness to supporting our infrastructure uh investments to ensure that we have a sustainable and reliable future. That's it from me. >> Great. Thank you. And just for the the public and people who are watching on TV, Deborah's sitting in for general

4:37 manager Lawson, who couldn't be here this evening, but we're in good hands with with our assistant general manager. Okay. Sonia had one more item. >> I I also uh forgot that I had attended the EW safety day um on September 11th, I believe. and the speaker that they had um who came to talk about his experience was absolutely phenomenal and um I I love that we have a safety day every year and we share resiliency with our staff. So, thank you for putting that on and inviting commissioners to attend. >> All right, next item on the agenda is correspondence. We received correspondence with our packet. There were, I believe, three items of correspondence this month. Uh, does

5:23 anybody have any questions or comments about the correspondence that was put in front of us? The only thing that I would say was is thank you. They're um the one on the uh both of them, the the Burlesson project and the McKenzie Valley study were good. Um the Burlesson project was something that we had brought up in the past as wanting some updates on. It was a good update. Uh, and as I was driving in today, I did notice some actual pavement down over on the Furlesson side. So,

6:10 that was encouraging to see instead of just piles of rocks. So, any other questions or comments. Okay, we're moving right along. We're going to move on to public input. So, for people who in the room, uh, you can look up on the screen. These are our code of conduct what to expect uh for our meeting today. I am going to read a facility awareness thing. I should have read this at the beginning but I'll just touch on those things. Ew web management and subject matter are present in the room and virtually. The meeting is being streamed live and recorded. Uh please speak loudly so everyone can hear you. Public testimony

6:55 is welcome. Sign up forms are available at the back of the room. So if anybody is here and hasn't signed up, go ahead and do that. We still have time. Visitor access is limited to the boardroom and restrooms. Restrooms are located on the first floor through the right hand door. In the event of emergency, uh follow instructions given by staff. And if evacuation is required, please calmly proceed to the nearest safe exit as identified and directed by staff at a exit away from the building. With that, I will open up the public testimony. As of right now, we have three people signed up. Uh, first one is Lily and then Al and then Allan or Alonso.

7:41 So, Lily, you can come on up. You have three minutes to speak and you can sit or stand, whatever you'd like. We happy to hear from you. >> Thank you. Hello everyone and thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the upper wamut soil and water conservation district. My name is Lily Lighterman and I am the upper soil and water conservation district manager and I have worked for the district for 10 years sorry and have been closely collaborating with e webb staff through the pure water partners program over entire 10 years. I would like to brief briefly discuss the proposal presented by Carl Morgan Stern, our board chair, highlighting the importance of this acquisition, the rice farm acquisition,

8:27 and the reasons we are requesting this funding, the funding that is present in the p the packet that you had. Additionally, I assure you that we take this request and our responsibility very seriously. As Carl mentioned in his letter, the rice farm acquisition provides extensive conservation and restoration benefits, educational and food security opportunities for the community, reduces chemical use by transitioning from conventional to organic and regenerative farming practices that can over time be lessons that are exported to other orchards in the region and will complement the work at nearby e webb and MRT properties. It is also clear that the potential cost

9:12 of this work is highly variable depending on the design and scope of these projects as well as the availability of outside f granted funds to offset these costs. As a result, the district proposes that EWB enter into a five or seven-year intergovernmental agreement with us to commit $1 million in funding for designing and implementing riparian flood plane restoration, green infrastructure for storm water treatment, cover cropping to support organic and regenerative growing methods and/or wetland enhancement and expansion projects. A primary point I want to make is that the district would work closely with EWB and its other partners to develop the scope and design

9:58 of restoration projects. Under this proposed IGA, EWB leadership and SCA and staff can decide which projects and aspects of the collaboratively designed scope they deem approvable to support for activities like initial design and permitting work match for other grants and more. I want to emphasize that this would provide a clear directive for e-web to approve funding on a projectby project basis. Eb lead leadership would have the discretion to make decisions maintaining a low risk to e webb. At the same time, the soil and water conservation district could have some asurances that ew webb will help us fund the implementation of critical restoration and conservation activities

10:43 on this property over the next 5 to seven years to ensure achievement of conservation and restoration goals. We hope you will consider this proposal and thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Next will be Lily and then Alonso. Oh, that was Sorry. Al is next. >> Do it again. >> No, Al first, then Alfonso. >> You're first, you're Al, and then he's Alonso. >> Okay, >> sorry. So many owls in the room. My goodness. Um, hi, my name is Al Hearnish and I am a an elected zone director and board member of the Upper Wamid SWCD,

11:28 whom from whom you just heard from Lily. Um, I represent the public's interest in clean water and healthy soils. And so my constituents are all the people of Eastern Lane County, which includes your customers and your consumers. Uh, tonight I'm asking for your financial support on the rice farm intergovernmental agreement that you are considering. Uh, our organizations have been officially sponsored uh, partnered in the past uh, and this is another chance for e webb and the upper lamid swcD to collaborate to collaborate on a project which I believe will benefit all of us. Um, I went on the PWP tour this past Thursday up the Blue River and that's a great and just to see the amazing fire recovery work that's been done up there and that's a great example of the kinds of collaborative projects that we need to engage in. we engage with you um McKenzie Watershed Council

12:15 who's also in the room tonight and some other organizations and and these are the kind of things that if you have a collaborative and productive partnership great things can happen and I believe this IGA that you're going to consider uh provides the ability to do that. Um Rice Farm is just upstream of your Mackenzie River water intake. uh and what we together can do to help keep your intake waters cleaner. Um and that requires fewer resources to bring them up to the standards that you have to maintain. And so I think this is a chance for you uh ultimately to pass these savings on to your consumers. Uh it seems like a big ask at first perhaps, but consider that this even though the terms will come to an end in maybe five or seven years, the projects that we take on are going to continue into perpetuity. and and that means that

13:01 long after this IGA has been completed, clean waters are still going to be produced and being sent not only to you but also downstream farther along the Mckenzie River. So, um I think sooner or later this project has to pencil out if that's the case. Um I also think that it's relevant here to look at the bigger picture and consider our role in the water cycle. We all extract waters, we dirty them up, they have to be cleaned. Certainly you you know this, but Ew Webb, you represent a lot of people doing this and I think this is a chance to send these clean waters on downstream, Lynn County, Benton County, seriously all the way to the ocean where the these waters, you know, just they enter into the water cycle again and the process starts all over. I think it would be nice for you guys to be able to

13:46 say, "Hey, look public, we had a big hand in making these waters clean and safe and usable for everybody and everything that uses these waters." And I think together we can be a part of this. So anyway, thank you for your time and consideration. Hope to hear from you soon. Bye bye. >> Thank you. Now Alto Alons Alfredo. Sorry. >> You got it. >> Alfredo. >> Well, hello again. So I'm here to talk about a few things. Um fees mostly. Um because we talk about sometimes figuring out ways to help lowincome people. And I'm looking at my bill here. So last month was $122. Of

14:32 that my usage, actual usage was $18 and the rest is all fees or delivery charge. Okay. There's $15 for storm water, which we didn't have any rain, but add that onto my 18. That's okay. So anyway, for low-income people, maybe knock out some of these fees. Maybe we can fill out some kind of application form to get rid of those or some kind of qualifications. And then also the age-old battle about the smart meter and now it's the smart meter fees that are going to be imposed. Um, since 1999, I've had my service with EW. And all that time, my bill has been paying for someone to come out and read my meter

15:17 without any extra charges. Suddenly, because I'm I'm an opt out person, I'm going to get charged 100 whatever it was, 120 or 150 for a setup fee for something that's already been being done for what is that 26 years in my case. And then $20 a month for someone to come and look at the meter on my house. I mean, I could send you guys pictures of my meters, send someone out every three or four months to make sure I'm not cheating, you know, something like that. We should keep these prices down. Um, I look at some of these fees again as, you know, we talked about this before as kind of like a coercion, a punishment.

16:02 Um, and that really doesn't feel good. We should have our choices. I'd like a million dollar grant to um restore my whole block to analog meters if we could put that through. But anyway, so that's basically all I've got to say today. Thank you so much. And I will be leaving the meeting to go to my scuba club meeting. Um, and as far as Oh, water quality, you know, I went up to Fall Creek the other day and dropped down in this what used to be 25t deep hole. That whole area is looks like it's been burned out. Now it's about 20 ft deep and the water definitely was not as clear as it used to be. So, I can see changes in the

16:48 water and I'm sure you guys are aware of all that, too. But, thank you very much. Thank you. With that, do we have any other people that have signed up? Okay, I will close the public testimony and open it up for comments or questions from commissioners. Okay. Thank you all for coming and uh testifying tonight. As far as the water upper Wamtt soil and water district, that is a item that is on our agenda later. So, we'll be discussing that at that point. Okay. Next up is the approval of consent calendar A, item five.

17:35 Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Unanimous. Okay. Next is approval of consent calendar B. Commissioner Brown, >> I'd like to move the IGA city just for a question. You bet. Anybody else want anything else pulled? All right. You want to pull that? So that was number three. You said number three pulled as well. So Mindy

18:25 three and five. >> All right. Is there any discussion on that? All in favor? >> I oppose. That's unanimous. Okay. We'll start off with number three. I I just wanted to get a quick clarification from staff because I noticed such a drastic difference between the um the two bids that we received. $4 million difference. It's 33%. if if if one of the staff could just talk a little bit about what we're getting between the two contracts that that really warrants um Pello over the other op option since both are Portland firms and and whatnot.

19:14 >> So I'll just go ahead and start. So for the record, Karen Kelly, chief operations officer and as you know these are qualificationbased um uh approaches to getting the contractors. So the first step just want to mention is all about their qualifications and the pricing is separate from that. From that I just want to push us over to Laura Farthing our uh principal engineer who can give you some details about what the differences are between the proposals. >> So like Karen said the way that the Oregon purchasing laws are written um consultants have to be picked on a qualificationbased selection process. So in this case um the price was worth 15% and then their project experience and um background and then their team was worth the other 85%

20:00 of the total score. So Corollo did score significantly higher based on their experience. They have designed the last I think they said 19 treatment plants on the Wamtt River. They just went through Grants Pass where they've been working as their design engineer. So they bring a lot of relevant experience on value engineering and looking at you know what we can do from a cost savings perspective. They also had a much more local team. Um the pricing is very different. Uh CDM Smith had a much smaller scope and a lot less services particularly through construction project management um inclusion of operations and their opinions in the process and design. That's really where the big differences came in. preliminary

20:46 design. Both consultants had the exact same dollar amounts. So about $2 million. That's their first step in the process. And then they kind of varied from there, but it really came down to construction services and the number of hours they dedicated to that. And like I said, project management. >> So quick followup. If if we had gone through the process and there hadn't been a such a drastic difference in the scores, but there was still a very drastic difference in the price, you all can't you don't have the opportunity to say actually we should go with the lower price one if the if the qualifications are similar. Is that correct? I believe, and Quinton maybe can speak to this better than I can, but we would have been able to go through um as long as you give equal opportunity,

21:33 um if their scores had been the same for experience, it would have come down to price and then we would have been able to go with a lower price. But in this case, their qualifications and their experience was much different. >> Okay, >> does that make sense? >> And I understand why we have this system. and we have the system so that we protect against lowbald prices with groups that are inexperienced and actually can't perform the job and then we have, you know, challenges with the work later. So, I I totally get that. It's just that price difference was eye-catching. So, I wanted to call it out a little bit. >> I will say it was a s significantly less effort and services provided at that 8.9 million. >> Okay, great. I'm good. Thank you, >> John. Well, three years ago at our

22:19 legislative things, we had a bill that was being promoted by the architects to mandate this that uh said that we can't it it takes away the bidding process and is that's the result of it that correct that that so that this is a result I know we oppose that >> and and because of now I think we have a real life example it's four million bucks granted but you know you you make your decision but there was an effort to get a law passed that said that we had to do this we didn't have a choice And that was a result of that legislation from several years ago. >> Correct. This is not an e-web policy. This is a state policy. We're required to follow it and it was pushed by architects and engineers. >> Right. Thank you. >> Other questions about item three. Okay.

23:04 We'll move on to item five. John. >> Um yeah, just regarding the IG. Um, so I my memory sometimes is good and sometimes it's bad, but I was I've been led to believe that this net difference in the billing cost to the city would be over a million dollars >> increase to them. Okay, that is correct. >> It was $162. Now it's $1.97. That's 35 cents a bill. We got 90,000 customers. That's 378,000 a year. How do we get to a million? >> It's going to $348. started off at that $162 when it was approved and then over time with uh annual adjustments it came up to the to the $1.97 and now it's going to the three

23:49 >> so the $1.97 I'm seeing in the background or I didn't see where it said the $3 >> the that is in the memo and that'll be the new charge. >> Okay, maybe I'm >> sorry about that confusion. Yeah, I just must have missed missed where it said 34 page two proposed fee update. >> Okay, >> sorry about that. >> No, 348. Okay, got it. My bad. Right. Thank you. >> So, yeah. >> So, does that mean the entire time um we were just eating that additional cost? So it does mean that we feel like we that we were missing costs of our billing department that were not included in the original methodology.

24:34 Additionally, a piece of that is that over time the city's charges have um become proportionally more of our bill and merchant services fees have continued to climb. And so those merchant services fees are a big piece of that too. and they'll now be rolled up in this per month or uh per bill fee instead of uh build separately. >> Okay. So, it'll adjust automatically then for the merchant services if those fees change or it's just that one set bill and we'll have to go through this process of updating. >> We we'll have to update the fees. So, the fee has we have a provision to update the feed periodically and evaluate those merchant services fees as a part of that. Okay, great. Thank you.

25:20 Other questions or comments? At this point, I would look for a motion to approve the these two items from the consent calendar. >> Move to approve the balance. >> Second. >> Any other discussion? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Okay. Unanimous. >> Thank Thank you. Next item we have is Upper Wamut soil and water conservation district investment opportunities.

26:05 >> Good evening, President Barski, Commissioners, Assistant General Manager Hart. I'm Karen Kelly, chief operations officer, and I'm here to talk to you about the proposal that you just heard some testimony from um from the upper Wamtt Soil and Water Conservation District. I'm going to refer to them as the district so that I don't trip up on my words. So, in July, um the EW Webb Board of Commissioners received a request to provide funding in the amount of 1 million to the district to help fund conservation efforts, uh regarding their planned purchase of the Rice Farms property. This property is 290 acres and located very close upstream to our Hayden Bridge filtration plant. In response and based on board feedback at that meeting in August, we requested the

26:50 district provide us with an interim management plan, an outline to their approach, a collaborative to the collaborative planning that they discussed uh financial information pertinent to the managing of the property and the stewardship calculator results. We did receive that information on September 26th and that is included in your board packet. Given the proximity of this property to our intake and the potential to improve watershed stewardship on this property, we are excited to support projects like the ones that are identified in the district's proposal. So before you on the left hand of this screen, you have the request from the district which includes 1 million investment over a five to sevenyear period through an intergovernmental agreement that we would um work have

27:36 staff work upon with the district staff. Within that is uh a couple of focus areas. Riperian flood plane restoration, green infrastructure for storm water treatment, cover cropping to support organic hazelnut production, and wetland enhancement and expansion projects. In the proposal, EWB would approve the use of the funds on a projectby- project basis after other funding had been pursued and resources are known. So, I want to respond to that request. We really do like this approach um with them having us review approval review and approve the use of the funds on a projectby- project basis. This is in line with many of our collaborative agreements in which we have a master services agreement and then that sets the boundaries for our interaction but

28:22 allows us to negotiate for specifics around um projects through individual task orders. And while we are supportive of this type of approach, we are recommending the board consider a modification to allow us to provide support both inind and direct monetary financial u support. We believe this approach will help us protect investments made on this property especially given the planning for its management is in the early stages. Taking a project by project approach considering both inind and monetary support will ensure alignment with our source water protection plan and existing priorities. It also allows us to leverage existing partnerships and contracts that e webb has deep experience with. It ensures resources both staff and financial are managed to

29:09 achieve specific outcomes and metrics. And why this uh modification is important to us is um as mentioned earlier the interim property management plan is again in its early stages and much could change. staff recently uh went on a tour of the property and along with the district staff and realized that there's a lot of work to be done there and there's a lot of questions still about impacts of property management on water quality things such as livestock management security uh illegal camping management and then the conversion to organic farming if we provide the funding as requested and as mentioned back in August this would be about $200,000 a year It could be navigated with an incremental uh 0.5%

29:57 uh rate increase in 2026. However, we have already made reductions in our plan budget and face additional increases in potential rates in the coming years for things such as taking on the ownership of the hydrants and possibly funding the second source construction. So, with the budget that we have already uh within source water protection, we do have about $2.1 million in non- labor funding for 2026. That does go down in subsequent years because of the watershed restoration fee um expiring in June, I think, of 26. So, we are concerned about our our um existing ability to fund and what the impact of this request might have on rates. And we

30:42 think that this modification provides the flexibility for us to come to the board should new projects be identified and we need to make a change to our our budget in order to uh accommodate those projects. So it's also possible that the district could sell parcels of this property in the future. And one of the things we want to make sure happens is that we set up a perpetual conservation easement over the portion of riparian land that EWB intends to invest funds in restoring through um through the district's proposal. So that is something that's also important to us. Alternatively, we might be able to develop a way for partners' first right of refusal should there be any land sale. And then the other concern is the farm has been operating in the red for many years and this approach would allow us

31:28 to have more time and information that would lead to a stronger feasibility study on the future um financial uh investment that could be made for this property. So those are some of the concerns and why we think this uh alternative approach is worth considering. With that on the slide, you see the first thing to consider is the uh proposal from the district. Again, it is to enter a five or seven-year intergovernmental agreement with the district and commit 1 million in funding or consider the staff's recommendation, which is to develop that IGA, but incorporate support through a combination of inind and monetary support that would be within consistent uh budgets and targeted outcomes, but

32:14 not guarantee a specific amount over time. So wouldn't uh cap it at 1 million, maybe under, maybe over depending on the projects and how they align with our source water protection plan. And with that, we're um happy to answer any questions as you deliberate on this or come up with your own options. And we've got uh some resources in the room and online to help answer questions. >> Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner Brown. >> Thank you. As you know, I'd probably give you every penny you have in your coffers if I could. It was necessary. But I I I'm reluctant to give a blank check in option number two because it doesn't I mean it right now option number one, we know what the cost is. Option number two, we don't. And uh and so I would probably want to amend that

33:01 to say that without coming back to us that you would option number two, which I support that would have a cap when we're calculating our staff time and our monetary considerations that it' be a million dollars because in the projects you listed about fire hydrants and things. I didn't hear the 42nd Street levy and that to me is the grill in the living room. that thing cost going to cost us a whole lot more than any of those other two if we have to participate in in stopping that river from encroaching on 42nd Street. So, um I would support this wholeheartedly with a cap of a million dollars on number two. >> Okay. And and just to clarify, option two would be in line with how we monitor the budget now. So, coming to you with any requests for um anything over 150,000 would still be what we would come to the board with to get approval

33:47 for. Would that also include staff time? Because if you put in >> Right. It would not. >> So that's >> although it's in the budget, it's part of the budget annual budget request. >> Okay. So I just want to make if if we write checks for a million dollars and we have a million dollars for the staff time, that kind of defeats the intent of what I'm talking about. So I just would like to, you know, we're strained on money and uh so that's my concern. I I'm all for this, but I just want to make sure that it's not a blank check. >> Yeah. So, I I'm supportive of option two as well, but I don't think that we need

34:32 to stipulate a cap because if there was some work that was strategic and we decided it was really important for us to do and it pushed us over that million dollars, but it was important enough that we wanted to do it, I wouldn't want that to stop us. So, I think as long as it's um like it says consistent with our budgets and targeted outcomes and uh done in a strategic way, I don't think that there needs to be a cap on it. >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Um I'm in agreement with Commissioner Schlushberg. I think uh I'm in support of number two um without uh needing to put on a cap.

35:18 And I just I want to acknowledge that I think option number one would be the easier path for this agency and and that staff is supporting option two I think is is something to be noteworthy of um of more work for your team but also that it's important to to put in that effort. Um, yeah, we I think we don't know what the future holds and being able to allow our staff to navigate um potential changes, potential opportunities, potential pitfalls as things as things come up um I think is is good. It doesn't mean that we don't have oversight over it as um many of these would would most likely come on our agendas and come to us anyway. Um so I I think that this is great. I think it puts trust in our staff and in this team

36:04 and I think um really provides a positive outcome um that could lead to incredible work being done. So I'd support option two. >> So kind of broadly speaking thinking about purchasing uh property next to the river. I mean this is so close to our intake that it it makes more sense to me. Um, but I do want to be cautious and just kind of put that out there that in the future looking at other properties in there. I know we're not purchasing it, but we're helping them facilitate purchasing this property. Again, it's very very close to our intake. So, I'm more supportive of it, but I also need to think about, you know, at what point

36:49 do we say we're not purchasing? Just to play devil's advocate, I mean, when are we not purchasing it? When are we not conserving all of the area around the river? when are the regulations that generally protect our waterways enough to keep them clean? Because we can't afford purchasing all of the water or the land that's along the waterway up above our intake. Um, I would also really like to see some of the other partners that also have water plants in the region uh put in funding. I don't know if we can make some of our support contingent on that, but I would love to see that over time um because they're getting the benefit of it and we pay a lot of money into it and I don't see as much coming back. So, just again, we'll put that out there. Um I am supportive

37:37 of number two because I think that that I support staff and your assessment of the situation. I am curious if our partners will see number two as a viable option that they can then move forward with to to commit to purchasing the property or if we're going to hear from them again um later that we that they couldn't purchase it because they didn't have a commitment. So I'm I'm curious if you have any thoughts on um that piece of it and in the discussions that you've had with them. Uh I don't I am I'm not I have not talked to them directly about this. So uh I would call on Susan Fricky who's our um supervisor online who has been talking with the partners about this.

38:24 >> Hey, good evening board. This is Susan Fricky. I hope you can hear me. Okay. I'm coming back from Portland right now and in my car. Um my understanding, we haven't had direct communications on this funding other than the letter from um Chair Morgan Stern, is that this would just be used for stewardship and for some other projects. This doesn't have to do with the um purchase amount. And I have not heard I did not see in the interim management plan of any other funding being sourced from places like SUB or any secured grant funding from any other source. The only request I saw was for the e webb one. So I cannot speak to the other funding sources. >> Okay. Thank you. I mean I'd love to see us put out some maybe some match funding. Like if we're going to put this

39:10 out there then we'll do it. If there's some match funding that comes in with it. My two cents. I don't know what others think of that idea. But um otherwise I am supportive. Number two. Um well I think I'm going to go a little bit different way than the rest of the board. Um from the way that I read the letter is one of the things that is important to making this project go is a management plan. um you know to to get to get all these pieces put together between the trust upper wall abit soil and water district McKenzie wershed council a bunch of people that are going to be coming together to try and make this thing work. One of the one of the

39:56 components that I saw that they were asking for was that they did need this ma this management plan as one of the key pieces to make the whole deal go. That may not may or may not be true. and the in the the number two option may satisfy that, but it seemed to me like the cleaner way again was the number one way. I know that that's a rate increase of 0.05% 05% in 26. But on the other hand, the $3 fee that was went to habitat restoration after the holiday farms is going to be going away approximately the same time, which is greater than the 0.05%.

40:41 You know, when we talked about that fee, we were talking about trying to keep it on, and I don't know if the will of this board is to move that fee in perpetuity, but this if that does go away, this is a very important piece of property. And if if a uh $200,000 a year for five years can help us acquire this property and if we don't do it, it may not it may not work. I would be in favor of option number one. Now that that being said, I see the I see the the votes around here. I would really want to know that if we go with number two if that makes this

41:26 deal a non-starter for them because if it is and they can come back to us and say we really appreciate what you're doing. We understand the that you know in kind and cash that we'll do it at this point, but if we don't have if they don't have a set plan to move forward, it may kill this deal. And that would be something that I would be absolutely devastated if we had a an opportunity for a in perpetuity conservation district on this much land that close to our water intake for half a percent increase in 2026 and we let it get away, I would be sick. And so I will

42:13 I would be in favor of number one. I see where we're going, but I would also be open to have this reopened if for some reason our decision on going with number two jeopardizes the project going forward. So that's where I would leave it. Indie, >> I guess I feel like um the action number two gives us some more flexibility but doesn't rule out us providing the money that would be necessary to secure the property. Um, I think it to me I just I just read it as um uh maybe just instead of just writing a check for it,

42:58 maybe there's other or in terms of like developing the plan or something, maybe staff expertise can be staff time can be used for that. Um, and again, it does list monetary support. So, I think it doesn't mean that we're not going to be giving monetary support. I don't know if that's too vague um to satisfy what's being asked of us. So um I'm still leaning towards number two, but I I feel like what we've heard from most everybody here is that everybody is supportive of this project. So um I guess I would also want to guarantee from staff to kind of honor that intention from the board that we want we want this to happen. Um but

43:44 Uh yeah that that's all >> Tim and then John. >> Thank you chair. Yeah that was my interpretation as well that there's that option number two could provide a uh monetary support of of what would be needed. Um I think my question if you don't have this information that's totally fine but um when is the deadline for the the final like when when will the deal or conversation need to be made before there's a solid yes or no? >> I recall the original letter said they were going to their board this month. So I think it's this we timed this so that we could give them some direction on our support. So if uh hypothetical it comes back and says

44:31 that's actually not the firmst commitment, we are not interested in this anymore. Does that mean that this whole conversation is over or does that mean that our board could come together and and provide a come back with option one instead or something different? >> I I believe any option is possible, especially when you're purchasing property. A lot of things >> e and flow with that. So >> I I decided to ask my question in possibly the most convoluted way possible. So thanks for interpreting it. Um yeah, I I see option two as as I think even a stronger commitment than than option one. Um I think it shows uh direct community support. I think it it shows that there's consistent support.

45:16 Um I I think it's a it's a good plan. So check >> point of clarification. any of the money or any of the assistance we provide has nothing to do with the acquisition. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, this but whatever we do isn't going to affect their ability to acquire it. They've got the money to acquire it and they're going to proceed. They've had it appraised. They're going to get a charitable contribution. I've read through all that. So, my reluctance is is giving an outside agency the ability to spend as much money because you can't tell me how much option two is going to cost us. Nobody can. And given our fiscal constraints, if if we say, "Okay, you've got up to a million." And then if you need more, come back. But if we just give them cart blanch and say, because there's nothing more important than the preservation, look at our customer

46:02 services surveys. The preservation of our water and the integrity of our water is the top thing that comes out every year and there's nothing more important and it won't get there. But if we if we go out and say you can do what you know basically we have we ever given an outside agency a a blank check and just said spend whatever you want or have no limit or have no plan. I can't in good conscious do that. We we we this is going to cost us a million bucks one way or the other. I'm all for that. And whether it's one or two, but I think two is what the staff wants. I'm I'm fine with that. But I just don't want it to go over a million without you coming back to us and say, you know, I can't think of a project that's not important. And I can't think of an idea that we wouldn't approve. But to just have that out there, it's it's like saying how long is a piece of strength? Nothing's been defined. And we have no idea what

46:47 that's going to cost us. So I would I'm still going to support number two, but I'm vocal on on the limit at least without you coming back to say we need more and why. So, what I heard was that our decision tonight on either of these they're is completely separate from their acquisition. That's what I understand. However, okay, I I think they're really looking for a a commitment from us so that they don't just have a piece of property and don't have the money to to do something with it. >> Okay. Sorry, there were so many other comments before that were contingent upon that

47:32 that lynch pin. Um that that's that's news to me and very interesting. Um I think that if for some reason it did, then I would have a different opinion about going to number one and I would want to make sure that their board didn't come back and just hold us kind of hostage to it um based on the fact that we just said, "Well, we're open to it." Because again, I don't I support the project. I think I think it's a great project, but I also want to make sure that staff have oversight and we're analyzing the pieces that we're spending it on, which is why I like number two more. It gives us the flexibility to support the pieces that we think are are very valuable and provide the staff time, the guidance to make the project successful. Um whereas one looks more like a a blank check to me to make sure

48:17 that the project goes through. But if it's not hinged on that, then I'm definitely more supportive of number two over number one. Thank you. again. >> Commissioner Carlson, would you like me to step in for a second and talk about that? >> Okay. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Didn't mean to interrupt you, sir. Um, yes. The things that were in the letter this time from Chair Morgan Stern were all stewardship were all like um activities that they were asking for funding or that could be funded by e webb that are postacquisition. Um in the most recent letter there was nothing about the acquisition hinges on this funding. They said they have ample funding for the acquisition. And so then there was an idea of a handful of activities that

49:02 could be done with this funding. Um those are the ones that we have staff has requested that we be able to negotiate which ones we you know delve into and why and which ones would be covered with inind capacity and which ones might need some more funding or contracts we hold or you know outcomes that would be like that. So um that's what this last letter said. It was not for the acquisition. And it was just for stewardship and you know cleaning up areas maybe doing some planting invasive control things like that that we are already been supportive of in other properties upstream of the um intake. Does that help clear it up a little bit? Yeah, I guess I just interpreted it that they were using the postacquisition support as part of their operating cost that they would look at the kind of the net present value of the entire project

49:47 and say, "Okay, if if e web is supporting X, Y, and Z, then we can make the entire project work." Because you're not just going to look at the cost of the acquisition. You're going to make sure that you can see, you know, the operation of the entire program fits. And so, you're not going to only look at that one piece to make the decision to purchase the property or not. You're going to look at the full picture. So that's why I thought that our support for the operating portions after it were still part of the decision-m the contingency on it. But if it's completely separate, that's great. >> That's what it looks like to me. And from when I read through the inter management plan several times, there's still a lot of uncertainties that they need to work through and including um whether they're going to which staff will be working on this, if they will hire more staff to work on this project,

50:33 you know, what the priorities will be. it seems like they're going to go and outreach more to do a stakeholder working group to figure out what people actually want to do. So, that stuff needs to be done um in my opinion before we would commit funding to certain projects. There's some, you know, like planting and invasives, protecting riparian, which are, you know, instant ones that we can support. Um yeah, this would give us I think Yeah, sorry. I'll let you guys talk. >> Okay. So again, I just want to reiterate that I'm hoping that if we go with option number two, that that will be enough of a an assurance to that board that they can go ahead and pull their trigger. Um because what I heard when Carl came and testified and then in the

51:20 two memos that we received was we got this big chunk of land. We're a fairly new, we're not a new agency, but their their funding, the way they they're being funded is fairly new. You know, they became a taxing district about five years ago, four and five years ago. And so, they're learning as as they're growing. And I would hope that, you know, they say, "Okay, we got this big chunk of land. We've got the money to buy it. It's going to take something to manage this land. We're going to need help with this. We've helped other partners up and down up and down the river for decades do these types of projects. Um, and I'm

52:06 just hoping that option number two will give them enough confidence going forward that they can pull the trigger and buy this property. Because what I understood was part of the part of the lynch pin of this was having a enough money and a plan to manage it for three to five years so that they can get it going. So again, I'm really hopeful that if option number two is the one that moves forward, that there's enough asurances from us in that IGR or IGA that gives them the ability and the confidence to move forward with this purchase. So I I'm

52:52 I'm for the clean number one, but I will let it go if that's the way it moves. Um any other discussion? So we are looking for a vote here. >> Move to approve option number two. Uh with the note that uh it will follow normal board policies and any uh monetary transactions will be brought back if it exceeds our 150,000 uh policy. >> There a second. Any other discussion? Thank you for that clarification because that I'll I'll support that. So, anything over 150,000 is coming back to the board and it's going to be earmarked, but we we're not going to

53:38 have a limit on the monetary contribution of staff time. Is that correct? >> So, I wanted to add for you all staff can go away and work on an IG. they will go away and work on an IGA with the district and that will come back to you all again and we can provide further clarity. You all have an opportunity to see um what we're proposing. >> Mr. Morris. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, is the intent of the motion that you made to keep that note as part of the motion or is it just an acknowledgement that we have a board policy about the the the financials that >> it's an acknowledgement that we have a board policy. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that uh it might be redundant to have that

54:23 language repeated again. So, thank you. That was it. >> Okay. There's a motion in a second. Any other discussion? >> Second. >> Yeah. Think. >> Okay. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> Four in favor? Opposed? I. All right. Four to one. Thank you for the vote and the discussion. I appreciate it. This is an important important part of our water clarity and I appreciate all the work that is being done by the district and all of the partners involved. Thank you. Okay. Next up is Oh, we can skip over that. We don't need to recruit a new manager. Let's just move on >> to I guess we'll we'll give it a few

55:08 minutes. Uh general manager recruitment. >> Thank you. Um so good evening, President Bravski, commissioners. My name is Dedra Williams and I do serve as the uh chief people officer for EW Webb. Uh with me today online is Laney Microoft of Microoft Five Partners who is serving as the board's executive recruitment of or recruiter for the general manager search. Today we are here to give an update on the executive recruiting process and are ultimately seeking direction from the board regarding some facets of the recruitment process and standards. Laney, did you want to take a

55:54 minute to introduce yourself and maybe give slight background? >> Sure. Hello everyone. I'm Laneany. Um I have worked with you a couple times in the past, but I think maybe only John's the same board member, so it's nice to sort of see everyone and sorry for not being there in person. Um I have been doing this for 29 years. Our firm has been around for over 50. We do a lot of work in the public power space and I'm happy to answer any questions about what we do or our services or if you have other questions for me before we launch into the the the the things we proposed today which is sort of a timeline and we've gotten some hiring criteria feedback from you and things along those lines.

56:42 >> Hi, nice to meet you. Thank you for uh joining virtually. I don't hold that against you at all. uh traveling right now is terrible. Uh I I am a little bit curious if you could give us some of the um the climate that we're in right now and and if you you know how you think the the process might go as you talk about our our process tonight. So if you could just pepper that in, I'd appreciate it. >> Sure. I would say in general this is a candidates's market, not a utilities market. I would say that people that have a lot of talent and are very good at their jobs are pretty picky about where they will go and there is a lot of competition for that talent. And so that might mean we have to be creative. We might have to look for talent versus specific types of experience. I think we will have to make sure we get to market as far as compensation goes. And all of

57:27 those are going to be tools that we do our very best to try to bring to the table a a robust list of people that maybe have different levels of qualifying experience so that you have some choices to to address. But in general, we'll say a long list of candidates is a shorter list than it once was. You know, in past recruitments, you could easily see 20 résumés and a good half of those are are very wellqualified. I would guess that we might see more like half of that in this particular recruitment process. >> Great. Thank you for that context. >> You're welcome. >> Any anyone else have questions for me? >> So, hi. Good to see you again.

58:12 10 years or whatever, but um do you go back to the process when we hired u Frank? Um I remember we had an internal process where you did an interview with all the department heads and all the employees. Um do you still have all that framework that we did that last time on on the process that we engaged in in the outreach and and how how we structured that? Do you still have that available for us? >> I do. I mean I would have to go back and pull it up. It's not in front of me right now, but I certainly Yes, I would certainly have all of those notes and all of the information that we went through the last time around. For sure. >> Yeah, because I'm I'm kind of a believer that if process works and we we're satisfied with the outcome, um it would be hardressed for me to change the

58:57 process significantly without basis for doing so. I just was wondering if if we had that at our so we can consider that in in our deliberations so we figure out the final process. Yeah, I think the process that we've proposed today or are about to propose today is very similar. I you know I think the only maybe differences and I'd have to go back and remind myself John if I came and met with staff to get their feedback or if it was just with the board. I think it was just with the board to get their input and feedback on what we might be looking for as well as the outgoing general manager at the time, Roger Gray. And I have had that conversation with with Mr. Lawson um and here we are having this conversation and I think you guys have given me some feedback which we'll talk about today more written but

59:43 this is our opportunity to have those discussions and sort of level the playing field about the hiring criteria and what we're looking for. So I think it's a little different in that we have some virtual participation as opposed to in person. The the only other difference I'm remembering is I don't think you folks saw the candidates twice last time. I and I can't quite recall that and so I would have to go back and remind myself. But what we've proposed this time is a a first round of interviews and then a second round of interviews. I think in the past I did the first round by myself and gave you more specific reports and recommendations on candidates. I will have done some of that by the time I present resumeumés to you and recommendations. But I think our

1:00:29 recommendation this time is maybe two looks at the candidate as opposed to one. Um, and that might be the only difference that we're proposing. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome. >> All right. Um, so the agenda today is uh five items, but we I think we can move through them pretty efficiently. We're going to review and confirm the plan timeline uh for the recruitment process. Uh Lane is going to lead us in a deeper conversation uh regarding the prioritization of qualifications and experience for the uh application process. Determine the avenues to secure any stakeholder feedback. Confirm the job posting document that we're going to use to advertise the vacancy. And

1:01:16 confirm a pay range that we're going to use for this recruitment process. So this will look familiar to you. Um this was very similar to what we had up in last month's session. Um it's a refresh and it has been updated to respond to the scheduling needs of both the board and my offbrite partners. Um after we can complete discussion of the hiring standards and the hiring procedures at today's session, uh the next several tasks for the board will be handled in the executive session that allows for protection of the confidentiality of both the process and our applicants and is allowed under Oregon statute. So, at a high level, um the better part of the next few months are going to focus on candidate sourcing

1:02:02 and pre-screening and some of your initial views into those applications that come in so you can sort of get a feel of who you want to talk to and how you're going to prioritize those. >> And do you want me to talk about these different steps and walk through this timeline >> or has that already been done? Okay. >> Yeah, why don't you go ahead and do that? >> Okay. So obviously the October 7th is what we're doing right now. We're having this sort of discussion to really vet what are we looking for in the next person kind of talk through the process and so on and so forth. I think the next step is when I start doing my work to network to post the position to source candidates. We we say it's going to start as early as tomorrow. That may or

1:02:47 may not happen depending upon approval of the search description and so on and so forth. But we have quite a bit of time for us to do that. Usually I like at least six weeks for that and we have plenty of time in that process between the October 8th and November 18th timeline. What's not on here is the date that I've sort of set for myself to deliver resumes to the board. Um I think the short list selection happens on December 9th, but I like to get things to you ahead of time so that you have a little time to sit with them and understand what we're talking about. And then when we talk about it on the 9th, you'll have specific questions for me. you'll have had my recommendations, you'll seen résumés and things of that nature. And so the date that I would plan according to this timeline to deliver résumés to you would be the 25th

1:03:32 of November, which is right before Thanksgiving. And then you would have a bit of time with those résumés to to digest them, come up with questions, thoughts, things of that nature. That's not necessarily on this um spreadsheet. So, I thought I would bring that to your attention. Um the December 9th meeting as I understand I would be there in person. We would be sitting and talking through all the candidates. This is John what we did last time. I I do remember being in front of you and visiting about different candidates. And we came away from that with the people that we wanted to do the first round of interviews with. And you'll see two blocks of dates in that second um section after December 9th that we're holding at the moment because those I think coincided with

1:04:17 dates that you were all available to do interviews. The we have two challenges I think that we might want to think about. The December 17th through the 19th dates are really a week after the time in which you select candidates. That may or may not work for us to schedule out of town people and things of that nature. it might work for us to schedule internal folks or local candidates and things of that nature. So, we thought we would leave that block there just in case we can facilitate something more quickly. And if we can get folks there, I think the sooner the better. The the second set of dates, December 31st to January 2nd, we're right over holidays. So, I just wanted to make sure you were all still available, you know, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, things of that nature. I think candidates could likely make themselves available for

1:05:02 that. But um so we're holding both of those right now just in case there's a challenge to either one of those processes. But the the idea is to use two or three of those dates back to back where we sit we have a first round of interviews with candidates and and go through that initial interview. Um from there we get done with that round of interviews. will sit again and deliberate probably at the end of whatever these these blocks are to select your finalists and you know that can be two it can be three I think maybe last time we had four but I I can't quite remember right now uh and then those people would come back for a final round of interviews and what we're proposing now is sometime between the the dates of January 12th and 15th we can firm that up or leave it totally

1:05:47 open my goal will be to tell candidates as I start networking and finding folks that are potentially interested, hold these dates in your calendar. That way, things don't slip and when we get to each of these different decision-m timelines, we know they'll be available for us. And then the rest is is sort of the the time that it takes for us to sit. Um, you you've you will likely deliberate and make a decision. I think January 28th is the the suggested date for that. Usually, the outcome there is we have some preferred candidates. please go forth and say, you know, if you were to be our successful candidate and how much would you need? We have a little bit of that back and forth and hopefully we're coming back to the table with something for you to vote on formally as an offer in in February,

1:06:33 February 17th, I think is the goal. >> I just have a question about the um interview process. >> Sure. >> Um so are all of the interviews virtual on Zoom or Teams or they all in person or kind of both? Well, we originally proposed um teams and we've learned that there is no way to do that in executive session and so this is a decision for the board if we want to maintain candidate confidentiality up to the point that they become finalists which I do think um most candidates would appreciate and would likely stay in the process further if we can at least guarantee candidate confidentiality up until a final interview round. usually in public power. By the time you're a finalist,

1:07:18 you know, it is more of a publicly discoverable situation. And so, in order to keep that confidentiality, what we're proposing is to come in person and do those interviews in person because then they can be held in executive session. You're likely to have more people in a more robust list of folks that would like to continue in the process if we can at least get, you know, some sense of confidentiality up until finalists. So, that's what we've proposed here. Um Laney, um a question on basically plan B because I'm looking at these timelines and these people that we're going to be recruiting are probably already in a management position and a high level position and um I look when holiday schedules are for kids both on the east coast and the west coast and

1:08:03 the and the holidays around the end of the year and I also look at travel and weather and I look at availability of travel. So what's plan B? because I don't want to lose a candidate because he's g he's already got a family vacation planned for the 17th to the 26th and we can't interview him and or or we have one or two of the candidates that can't come because of weather. They get trapped in Denver or wherever. Um and and so what is the thought process about that? because I love better late than wrong for me and uh you know I don't want to lose a good candidate because they already have some logistics planned and everything and so just we could think about that. >> Yeah, good question. I think that's why we held both dates as well both sections December um 17th through the 19th and

1:08:50 then the 31st through the 2nd in case of any of those eventualities. I would say in addition to that, as I'm talking to people, you know, we're we're networking. I'm doing screening interviews with these folks. I'm going to mention these dates and ask them to either hold them or tell me if there's conflict. If there's conflict, I'm going to report back to you. We have conflict. I mean, I I will be giving weekly updates. And if that means we have to pivot and move dates further down the road, if there are folks that I say it, you know, we haven't selected, you have not made your choice, but I think some of your very strong prospects aren't available. we might have to look for other dates. And so I I feel like that could be iterative without necessarily coming up with other things to hold in your calendars unless you prefer to do so. >> Well, I'm just wondering that if we get

1:09:35 pushed back a week or two around the end of the year, does that commensurately push the entire schedule back that same amount of time? So, we would be looking in, you know, any any push it back? I'm just trying to think about. Yeah, I think worst case scenario, let's say we have to use the second round of dates that we're planning for the second final interview as the first interview. You know, that's obviously a month delayed. Um, depending upon when Mr. Lawson's going to formally retire, and how flexible he is, it might push how much notice somebody needs to give, how long we take to negotiate. I wouldn't want to go any further out than that. I would be a little concerned that we wouldn't be able to pull it together. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Lanny. For for me, the thing

1:10:20 that jumps out is the December 31st is the second. >> That just that doesn't work. I mean, I we I think we could push that to the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of the following week, which is like the 5th. Kids are back in school, but doing it over the holiday weekend just seems problematic for both candidates and board members. >> Yeah. Well, what we could do is hold different dates for that second block. I mean, continue to hold the 17th through the 19th in the event that all things line up and it's fantastic and we pick people on the 9th and I can schedule them through those times and we're done. Um, if if you'd like, we could pull the board and find other dates that are after January 2nd for that first round

1:11:07 of interviews. If that's the case, and we do push out that far, we're likely to have to come up with a secondary set of dates for the final interviews that might work to allow enough time in between interviews for people to schedule travel and get out there and do all of the things. Uh I mean, I'm I'm concerned that the candidates might have challenges with those dates. I personally don't and it's actually slightly better for me in terms of time because I already have those days or I have at least one of those days off whereas other days pushing out in the future if we're doing them um during the daytime you know I have a job and I need to go to that. So, gets more challenging unless we're doing all of these um in the evenings. And I don't know what the the plan is time-wise

1:11:53 there, but I'm assuming some of this has to be during, you know, regular business hours because we have to accommodate different time zones. So, I just I want to be cognizant of that, too. Um you mentioned that we can't do it through Teams. I just wonder if we can um if we could allow that to be the preference of the candidate. So, we could provide some flexibility if we had some in-person dates versus some um teams dates if that helps with traveling during what is a nightmarish season anyway. >> So, one of the uh teams is an option uh or virtual interviews are an option. The problem being that it becomes difficult to maintain the confidentiality of the process. Um, if you allow a uh virtual

1:12:42 participant, then you need to allow any type of participant uh to be virtual, which could involve um media uh uh participants. Um and we while we're not concerned about our media partners, there is an opportunity for someone not on the media list to to piggyback on a on a on a team's call in. um and that could break the confidentiality for those candidates. So it is a possibility we but the board does >> could make that could make that determination if we or if if they choose that know that that is more important to them or that they don't have trust in it that they could >> visit us in person versus doing it on

1:13:27 teams because it's it just seems like a another challenge for them to travel during that time. Uh back to uh Commissioner Brown's question around timing and weather delays and things like that. Um again, it is a possibility that we could use um virtual interviews, particularly within the uh the short list interviews. Uh but again, just knowing that's the piece we're weighing. >> Okay. >> And I'll add I'm I'm sorry. I was just going to say I think we should keep moving along because this is a we're already halfway through the presentation and we're just on the timeline. >> Yeah. >> So, go ahead, make your comment and then let's move to the next section. >> Yeah. Well, I I think we can be as flexible as we want to be. I'm happy to offer that to candidates and say, "Hey,

1:14:13 if you're not worried about confidentiality, we can do this virtually." But to to your comment before, you're likely talking about two straight days of interviews. So, you're right. These are days that you might take off. I mean, even if we could do some in the evenings, you're spending an hour and a half with maybe six candidates. You know, that's a a good stretch of time. So, I I do think um I'm happy to be as flexible as you'd like to be. I don't think it's likely that a lot of external candidates would want their names out there at that stage, but I could be wrong. Um so just for confirmation and direction from the board uh what I believe I've heard is perhaps more conversations around the timing uh once we get to shorelits interviews and

1:14:59 finalist selection and to reframe that. Okay. So I will uh work individually with you on getting that input. Um and we will revisit this um at a prior uh a prior session or sorry subsequent session to uh to finalize that. Okay. Um so in the last few weeks um each of the board members responded to a hiring criteria survey sent to the board on behalf of my Microoft from Micro F partners. Um it was sent individually to all commissioners and was designed to keep uh the survey results segregated from each each uh commissioner um so as

1:15:45 to fully comply with public statutes controlling the executive hiring process for public companies. Accordingly, the aggregated results provided in the board package will provide the first view into the board's prioritization of the qualifications and skills necessary for a general manager candidate. Um, Laneany is now going to lead the board into a discussion regarding the survey and the board's prioritization of education skills and experiences required for a successful GM. Laney. >> Yeah. And I won't go through each of these slides. I I think that might be a bit much and it sounds like we want to be cognizant of time. But maybe just to call out a few things. I I think the most obvious alignments were on some leadership acumen. you know, integrity, trustworthiness, setting a compelling

1:16:31 vision and strategy, implementation abilities, and coaching and developing others were were things that it seemed like everyone had high on their list. Um, obviously that doesn't mean I'm not going to be focusing on all of these other things. I'm certainly going to be focusing as much on these things as possible, but I heard those as the priorities, and it seemed like they were everyone's common priorities. But not surprisingly, we're looking for lots of different leadership acumen. And so, just to be clear, not all of this will be articulated in the search description, but I take it so that I know how to grade candidates and vet them and bring the right sorts of folks to the table and and so I think there's quite a bit of alignment there. Um, I I think there's also quite a bit of alignment on the types of experience

1:17:16 that you'd like to see. I mean, you did have, I think, a refresh of your job description, and in that, you know, there's some pretty strong language about maybe a CEO of already a public agency or somebody in a very senior executive role in other types of organizations. Your individual feedback showed a pretty strong preference for the not for-profit sectors, whether that was cooperative or public power, with maybe some options for IOU folks if they share that right leadership and managerial acumen. And so I plan to take a a broad brush to look for all of the above. Uh but certainly it seems like we're leaning a little more heavily towards that not for profit and public power space. Um I think one of the surprises for me was knowledge of BPA

1:18:01 didn't score very high where in the past and in most of the recruitments that I do in the Pacific Northwest that scores pretty high. some regional experience and knowledge. I cited in the job description that or the search description that we talked about as a a desired and a preference, but it it didn't seem to be as much of a preference for everyone. So, I thought I might g reauage that and and ask you specifically how important it is to you folks individually that maybe some knowledge regionally or of the BPA market. Where does that rank for you in terms of priority? Well, I'm looking at some staff here that I think have probably in my opinion some of the highest level understanding of the Bonavville operations and and

1:18:48 things such as that. And and I think for me, I mean to put all my eggs in one basket for BPA doesn't give the diversity of the public power versus that. And we have an incredibly qualified staff and that I rely on and I think our new general manager will rely on too if that's not their strongest suit. I I would rather look at the CEO and COO experience because you know it's a whole lot more than BPA. You know to me water is more important than electricity. So there you have it. >> Fair. I may have ranked it a little bit lower because we're going through the process of doing our BPA contract right now and so it will, you know, presumably be done for a number of years whereas I think, you know, this last round of

1:19:33 recruitment, it was really critical that we have somebody that can lead the team and and understand that knowledge to set up the next contract. But I don't think that the next GM is going to have I mean obviously there's always working with BPA and getting through that but um I think the the biggest decision there is probably going to be off and running by the time they get on boarded. >> Well, that's excellent. Yeah, I mean that is what the feedback said. I just wanted to make sure I'm I'm reading it right. Um and I'm glad you brought up John Water experience. That seemed to be pretty important for everyone. That can sometimes be a limiting factor. Not every public power utility has water. Not every water utility has public power. So finding somebody that has both

1:20:18 might be a little limiting. And so I might bring folks that don't have both to you. And you can decide if they have the leadership and managerial background and acumen to assimilate to one or the other services. Certainly my goal will be to bring both to the table, but again, I'd like for you to have as many choices as possible. Um, I did see that union working with unions, um, and some union leadership and negotiation might be helpful. So, that's kind of highlighted in the job description. Um, I think some good managerial seasoning is highlighted in the description that you're we're going to talk about here next. Um, this I didn't address this in front of us. Obviously, COO and CEO experience

1:21:04 took the the majority of the vote for the board as the types of things that might be most appealing. A little bit later, there was some comments about some good financial acumen and business sense and some folks from that realm. So, again, I'm going to take a broad brush. I'm going to bring folks that bring maybe some seasoned operations experience, some seasoned financial types of experience, and some seasoned, if we could find it, sitting CEO experience. And those are hopefully going to be the candidates that we get to choose from. And I think in general, I mean, that's what I took. I did see a lot of comments about strategic planning. Um, you know, I, you know, maybe some shared energy efficiency, demand response types of experience because I think that's planned for you folks in the future as

1:21:50 well. Um, I I did see some level of importance for previous work or ability to work with the board. So that's going to be pretty high on my list of things to to look for as well. Similarly, working with members and stakeholders in community relations was pretty important to everyone and I think that holds true for most public power types of roles and that probably is why we like the not for-p profofit sector types of individuals because they will bring that to the table. And so I think in general that's what I heard. Um, again, I I hope you're flexible enough to let me bring you some choices to the table that maybe we have to look beyond exact experience and hire for talent, but my goal will be to get as much as all of this in one person as possible.

1:22:41 >> Great. >> All right. >> So, pivoting um to a discussion um on stakeholder feedback. I'm gonna I'm gonna just chime in on one thing that that I I've seen in in what Frank brings to the table as a general manager and something that I I really appreciated and that is he's put a really strong executive team together. So when when John talked about oh you know does he need to know BPA and does he need to know this and does he need to know that? We've got really strong people heading a lot of our departments. And what I've seen Frank do is try to give those people the opportunity to do

1:23:27 their jobs and help steer the organization rather than micromanage the organization. Um, and that's something that that I've felt it was very advantageous to moving the the organization forward in the in the five years that I've been here. I've seen him empower his execs and let them do the job and just help coach them and move them forward. So for me, that's an attribute and I don't know how you you quantify that, but I know that there are there are different types of management styles and some of them are very hands-on and some of them are very uh empowering. And I I've seen how the empowering side has helped move this organization forward in the time that I've been on the board. So, I don't know

1:24:12 how you quantify that, but that's just something that I would I wanted to put out there so you had my feelings on that. >> That's great. Thank you. Yeah. >> So, >> um in terms of the the process, I'm I'm curious if we Sorry, I just want to make sure that I throw this out there. um may not be the exact time for this, but as we go through the process, I do want to make sure that we're we have a a diversity, equity, and inclusion um policy, and I I am curious how we are going to relate those values um to the hiring process. I mean, there are certain standards that you can utilize to ensure that everybody has a fair shake. Um, I've heard already, you know, a couple of times

1:24:58 tonight referred to as he. I would like to make sure that we recognize that our next candidate could be a woman. I'm just throwing out there that those are the kind of things that I so care about and I want to make sure that there's um ways in which the process protects um all kinds of candidates and all backgrounds. >> Sure. Yeah. >> I I agree with you wholeheartedly. I always look for a list of candidates that are diverse in many ways, shapes or forms, whether it's racial or gender or the types of backgrounds they bring to the table and so on and so forth. And I think we have a pretty good track record of that. And so certainly I understand the need to do it and the value that it brings and and will bring that to bear as well.

1:25:44 >> So I'd just be curious if there's any particular you know hiring practices in the vetting. I've heard um you know sometimes names in the first round are removed so that you don't know whe whether it's a you know female or male or they have a name that's hard to pronounce they get equal vetting. I don't know if that's part of your process but I'd love to know a little bit more about that too. >> Yeah I would say um it's difficult for me in that regard because I know a lot of these f folks already in the industry. It's a a little bit different. It's more of a finite group of people. If we start talking about public power CEOs or COOs or people around the country, I have likely run into them somewhere before. So even removing their names would not necessarily hide the and and much of what I do is direct

1:26:29 solicitation of their interest. It's not asking for résumés and then reading it freshly through. It's a much more targeted recruitment approach. And so, while I I understand what you're saying and can totally appreciate that that gives you a a more blind view of a candidate, it's likely that I know a lot of these folks that we're going to be talking to to some degree and a lot of what I'm doing is calling, soliciting their interest, asking them for recommendations of other folks that they would recommend because I trust their opinions of folks that might not. So, it's a slightly different take and I don't know that I will meet the criteria that you're talking about. um of bird moving names and things of that nature. Yeah, >> maybe even when you're sharing the resumes with us initially because I

1:27:14 don't think we do. >> Absolutely. Happy to do that if that's what you prefer. You bet. >> If if others are supportive, I mean that's just my preference, but I'll look to others too. >> Okay. All right. So, um turning to stakeholder feedback. Uh last month's session, we had sort of an initial conversation uh regarding potential methods of securing stakeholder feedback, community feedback regarding this process. Um as it's a facet of the hiring process, we're seeking to get clarification from the board regarding what avenues you wish to use to secure that feedback. One thing that I'd like uh everyone to note is that a mechanism

1:28:01 for soliciting and securing community feedback already exists. At the beginning of every general session, a portion of that agenda is set aside to allow community members and other stakeholders to provide feedback during the public input section. Um interested parties are welcome to give testimony regarding the general management recruitment process at that time. uh stakeholders are also able to give feedback to commissioners at any point through emails or letters to one or all of the commissioners. So those are existing standing ways to give feedback that that are known and utilized. Um there are other feedback mechanisms the board could elect to use. Uh the board could direct staff to facilitate a special listening session

1:28:48 um as a portion of an agenda or as a standalone meeting that is designated and advertised to secure community feedback. Um alternatively, it could also be possible to use digital tools, survey monkey, things like that to create an online survey form to um gather such feedback. So, as a point of discussion for the board and direction to staff, the question is asked, should a special listening session or survey tool be employed to secure community feedback? >> Tim, >> thank you, Chair. Yeah, this was a agenda item that I brought forward last month, and so I appreciate the the dedication to to bringing it back up and having this conversation. Um, and I just

1:29:33 want to acknowledge, I mean, we have spoken as a board that hiring the general manager is the most important decision that we're going to be making. And I think that that um should also be acknowledged with our outreach into the community and and stakeholders ability to to weigh in. Um, I think obviously folks can come to public comment and share their opinion, but I think it would be important to take another step in acknowledgement of of the incredibly important decision. So, I um I'm going to sort of gauge how my colleagues, my other commissioners feel about a special listening session, but I I would support a a survey tool that's just open for the public to be able to weigh in on. Um and I think that's primarily just because of

1:30:19 living here in Eugene that our community is deeply passionate and uh very opinionated and I think that this will give them an avenue to express their thoughts. Thanks, >> Mindy. Then John, >> um Tim, I think this might be the first time that I disagree with you. Um I just worry that doing something like this would be performative. I know I use that word a lot when we talk about the public process, but sometimes it feels performative when we ask the public for their input because we've already put together a job description. We have we're working with a search firm. So, what happens if a month from now we have a listening session and a

1:31:04 group of people show up and say that they want something different? Like, are we going to are we going to pivot then? Um, I I feel like I feel like there are many ways for people to offer us feedback and tell us what they want. And um people are free to like dear just said come to public comment. People email us. People request meetings all the time. But I feel like it might just be opening a can of worms to have a listening session because we don't know who's going to show up to that listening session. It could be like a certain group or it could be certain constituents that are like-minded and not represent the broad community. And then if we hire somebody who doesn't have those qualifications or those

1:31:49 qualities, then it'll seem like we didn't listen. And I guess I feel like this is a really big role of ours as elected officials. And we've been elected to make these decisions. So again, not that we're not open to hearing what people have to say, but I do feel that if we open it up to just a general listening session or even a survey monkey, I'm just not sure what we're going to do with that information. >> I pretty much agree with Mindy, but um I'm not afraid to to listen to people that come to the podium because this is such a complex set. I mean, electricity is so complex and water is so complex and there can be misunderstandings and misperceptions that we heard one this evening. Well,

1:32:34 just do away with this fee and do away with this. Well, we can't because those fees represent costs and things such as that. And so, if we set up an expectation that we can't meet, then you know, it's not shame on us. And so, I'm more than open to to listen to people that have public testimony and and uh and go from there. I I think Laney, can you correct me? We did what did we do 10 years ago? >> We we did not do a stakeholder outreach. I think the opinion of the board at the time was you were the represented folks from your different areas of constituency and representing their interests by being the people that made the the selection and so that wasn't something that we did. >> Yeah. I think I mean we four of us re represent two distinct geographic areas

1:33:20 and and some of us have different criteria. I mean, different income levels, different motivations. I mean, people from my two wards will probably have different >> set of expectations for a general manager than people from Tim's ward or Mindy's ward wards or you you get everybody. And so, but uh I'm just thinking of that and and think the way this organization is structured. We're we're supposed to represent geographic areas of the community. And to me, I want to do that outreach to to those particular geographic areas. that that doesn't mean I don't want to listen to others, but if I'm going to be true to my colors, so to speak, I want to make sure that I I listen to the people awards four and five. So, thank you.

1:34:05 >> The the interesting thing for me is that I think most of the general public has no idea who Frank is. They've never met him. Um he's been very successful over the last 10 years. So for them to weigh in and and give you know meaningful feedback is more we want somebody who runs an organization effectively. I mean that that's what it means for me. But the the folks that I care to hear from specifically are the people that work here dayto-day that are actually you know more members of the public and have to deal with this person dayto-day. to the extent possible, I would like to see more of our internal community feedback um be uh help weigh in the process more than maybe external because I just don't think that the the general public I mean

1:34:50 they can come and weigh in on values and the direction of the organization at any point in time but it is so critical that we pick somebody that meshes well with the culture that we already have established and for you Obviously, continuous improvement. We always want to be better, but I'd like to have more feedback from our internal um community than maybe a broader listening session. I do like the idea of of providing um of, you know, when we get down the road, maybe having um the final candidates provides maybe a letter that we could open up the public to, you know, provide emails on. I don't want to do a full survey process. I just don't feel like that's um

1:35:35 very I I just think it's probably waste of time. And I I again we encourage the public to come. They can come in any meeting we have uh that is a regular session and come and testify. They can send us emails if they're so inclined to do so and pay attention to it and that's great and those people do. Um otherwise it it just feels like we're asking for a foregone conclusion. So thanks. >> Um so for me there I think the way that I'd like to see it play out would be let our communications team put out there you know through our various media things. This is the way that you can comment on the general manager thing. Point out that we the email address.

1:36:20 Point out that they can come and testify using using the avenues that are available that we don't have to reinvent the wheel. The one area and this kind of goes to something that John said you know or Mindy that you know a lot of these people don't know the complexities of all of this but there are some key groups that of customers that are familiar with the the complexities and those are our our big our big key accounts. Um and I would I would hope that maybe our staff could get the message out to our big big account holders. you know, the people that are our biggest customers, some of our industrial customers, IP, those types of things, and ask them for input because

1:37:05 they are more familiar with what's going on here and what what they might want to see from a general manager. Let it that could be done at the staff level because they've got relationships. We've got a person that's in has that under their guys, you know, that's their look over the key accounts, but have them reach out to them and say, "Do you have any input?" and would you send an email as well? That would be something that I would like to hear from is some of those people. Um, as well as the general, you know, our 200,000 customers throughout the area. That's just me. >> What kind of information would you ask them for? I'm just curious. >> I would ask them the same thing that we're asking of the general public. What types of qualities would you like to see

1:37:50 in a in a general manager? Um, a lot of these a lot of the people that we would be reaching out to are in the sea seed s suites of these larger corporations or industries and may know the types of things that they would like to see in in a a man uh upper management CC type of a person. >> I was just going to say I guess if we're going to open it up to them then I would open it up to the general public in the same process. >> And it would be the same process. asking them >> just >> just reaching out to them to ask them for input through email or or testimony. Oh, >> okay. Got it. So, just reaching out generally to the public and account

1:38:35 holders. I mean, that's all account holders then. >> Okay. Well, again, I I just go back to the performative piece a little bit because we've already like tonight we're we're settling on our criteria and we're going to be posting the the job description. So at this point then to go out and ask the public or key stakeholders what is it that you want like we've already said what we want in a general manager. So unless there was I mean I just don't know what the what the point of it would be but we can say like we are hiring a general manager we welcome feedback we always want to hear from people on a variety of issues but I think specifically saying that we want to get feedback about that well like that ship has kind of already sailed

1:39:20 because we're far far enough into this process unless we decided to say we want to wait to hear the feedback we get from the public and I don't think that that's something that we're planning on doing, >> Tim? >> Yeah, thank you. I uh I appreciate the feedback, especially from my commissioners who have been here longer than I am. So, I uh uh you know, I know for my community that they are extremely vocal. Uh and so, and I much appreciate that and I'm I'm hopeful to provide them an opportunity to come and speak. And so, um uh I appreciate that. Commissioner Carlson, you said something that really resonated with me of of checking in with the team of folks here. Um, and that's that's feedback that I'm, you know, that that is available to us as well. And I I would hope that we

1:40:06 >> um really uh prioritize is hearing from from the folks of of people who work directly with the GM's office or maybe even indirectly. Um, I think that that is um deeply valuable feedback that that would be very helpful in in this decision-making. Um, and then I I agree with the the how the conversation has has evolved from here of um I suspect reaching out to specific account holders we may receive a monolith of a response back. Um, and uh I I'm not too sure how how much more information that would provide. Um, so I'm I'm a little hesitant on that one. >> Other comments? Did you were you able to

1:40:52 glean anything from that? >> Um, one one comment I will make is that uh um I hear a lot of interest in staff feedback. Um, and I'll just uh remind everyone we we did bring this up last month. um and I've noted it and know that that's something that we need to accomplish um eventually, but that was put on pause because we weren't sure if there were internal candidates and you don't want um the prospect of an internal candidate skewing what the application process looks like. Yeah, >> I'm I mean I would just personally say that I mean around the the kinds of values, the areas that we need improvement in the the general um look

1:41:37 for who we want to recruit. I think that would be still very valuable generally from the staff. Um but I know that's challenging if there are known internal candidates, but I would still like their feedback. I think that that would be important. I believe Laney, correct me if I'm wrong, but um memory serves me that we had a internal candidates last process and b we had a very robust internal uh feedback. It was anonymous by by not only department heads and and and all the key uh the executive team but also a lot of employees and things such as that. And it was an anonymous process where they could say this is what I want in a general manager. And if I'm wrong, correct me, but I think that's what we did last time. >> We did that. That's accurate. There was

1:42:22 I have a sheet from last time that all of that feedback was aggregated and shared with me much like the feedback that you you folks shared with me. It was it did not call out who said what. I there would be no way for me to figure that out. So, I can't quite remember how it was administered, but that was provided to me. It was valuable. And we did have three internals. I think we cautioned that if anybody planned to be internal and then they needed to recuse themselves from that feedback process, but I don't know that there's a way to to guarantee that. >> Tim, >> yeah, thank you. Yeah, I hear the concern of of an internal candidate who may be interested in putting their thumb on the scale, but I also want to recognize we have hundreds of employees um and one, two, three, 10 responses I

1:43:09 don't think would change our like change the feedback. But the on the other end of that are receiving however many feedback responses I think would just be incredibly valuable. So um I do think that's a concern. I think that can be a message that goes out of of uh hey this is you know an integrity conversation of not putting in feedback if you plan on applying for this open position as an internal candidate. But I'm I'm not too concerned about about that. All right. Um, so let me repeat back what I believe the direction is and the board can confirm. Um, I believe there's an intent to get internal feedback um, regarding the candidate. I can or

1:43:54 regarding the uh, the process and the the priorities. I can secure that for you. Um uh and I'll work with with Laney to ensure that the that we're aligning with her needs as well for for sourcing. I believe what I'm hearing is that any external feedback um from community or stakeholders uh could be secured through um the general inputs section at the beginning of any board session. um and that we can uh put a reminder in there that that is what that general input section is for within the board session. Is that correct? >> Also email and

1:44:39 >> or email. Yes. Is that accurate? Yes. >> Right. Um hopefully we can move quickly through this next piece. Um, in order to start kicking off the process for actually posting the job, securing candidates, we need to have a job posting. This is, you know, really part of the hiring criteria. It's a it's an a uh an artifact of that. So, we we are seeking for the board's approval of this job posting. Uh, the full job posting was in your materials. Um it it's based off the uh the job

1:45:25 description that the board approved last month and was in the consent calendar this month for formal approval. Um I think those it and it will kick off the candidate search and screening step. Um which in theory um could start as early as tomorrow if we can we can move this piece through. Laney, any really quick comments on this that uh you need for additional color? >> I don't think so. Um I'm just looking through it to there was one comment made by one of the commissioners this evening about being more empowering and delegate delegatory as opposed to micromanaging. I want to make sure that's called out strongly enough since

1:46:10 that's that was maybe a new comment and so I have to read through this to make sure that that might need necessitate an added sentence if we want to have that in here. >> I I don't think that would be necessary to add as an added session. I think that that would be something that could come out during the interview process. >> Perfect. Okay. Um so with that uh does the job job posting as drafted accurately describe the duties? Is board comfortable with approving this job posting? >> Didn't we already approve that? It was part of the consent calendar. >> No, that was the job description. This is the job posting. >> Two different documents. Sorry. >> Okay.

1:46:59 >> Yeah. I mean, for me, I think I'm I'm fine with it. It's a posting. It's not a you have to check every single one of these boxes to be there. It's just a public document that goes out so that Lanny has something that she can send off and people can look at and say, "Yeah, I think I can do this job." And I would put in an application. So, I'm fine with it. >> You want a motion to that? >> Um, yes. A motion to approve uh job posting as as was uh given in the board packet for use by Microsoft F partners for the general manager recruitment. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? Any other discussion?

1:47:44 All in favor? >> I Okay, now the easy part. >> Final topic. Yes. Compensation range. So um as part of the over recruitment process we need to identify the compensation range. This is again part of the hiring criteria needs to be done in public session. Over the last few months uh HR has worked to do a updated market survey of our comparator companies for their general manager positions. Um the results are on the slide demonstrate that US general or current general manager pay is aligned and competitive with the market. Um, when you look at all comparators, you will notice that EWB's pay lags market

1:48:31 by almost 15%. But if you drop the highest and lowest comparators from the analysis, which is a common tactic used to eliminate data skew from outliers, uh, you'll see that we're within 6% of market. So, we're very close. Um so overall and that's in the red boxes um on the lower right hand corner of the uh of the charting there. Um overall um you'll see sort of a swing from uh uh 340 uh sort of a total comp based in additional benefits up to uh 475 ballparky. Um that suggests that really a uh 350,000 to 450,000 range may be a

1:49:20 um a reasonable range to be using with this uh recruitment based, you know, depending on the education experience that the final successful candidate brings to the board. Uh Laney, did you have some input that you wanted to add really quick before we turn it over to the board for discussion? Yeah, I think you and I talked independently and before um seeing all of your data, you discussed what I thought the likely market was. And believe it or not, I came up with 350 to 450 is where I think you're likely to see most of your candidates that would have interest and be qualified to be seeking in terms of compensation. I I might be slightly off. There might be wiggle room. I guess I

1:50:06 would look for direction from the board. is do we have that range to work with? Obviously, at the end of the day, you will make decisions when you have resumes in front of you and when I present those to you, you will have their salary requirements in rough form. So, you can make some decisions and tradeoffs. Is it worth going a little extra for this particular person or not? And and so I think right now we need a range with which to attract candidates, but it's not necessarily marrying you to what you're going to offer the successful person. Yes, Sonia. >> I support a range of 350 to 450. That seems like a pretty wide enough range that we can have some wiggle room and you're the expert and you see this every day. So, I'm going to go with with your gut on it. Thanks.

1:50:53 >> Um I'll just weigh in. Um, from the comment that you made earlier about it being a candidates market as opposed to a an offers market, I would lean towards the higher side. I want to get the right person in here and I don't want somebody that may be the right person look at 350 to 450 and say, "I'm not even going to bother putting in my name at that range." Um, so again, I would I would lend towards the higher I would I would lend towards 375 to 475 just so that we don't lose anybody. I don't think we're going to get anybody in here at 350

1:51:38 uh that I want to have sitting at that front table. Uh I think it's the market is out there. Oregon is a I mean Eugene's a beautiful place to live. Eugene's an expensive place to live and Eugene is a place if you're they're going to relocate to. It's a it's compensation is going to be one of the major factors into getting the right person here. So, I don't want to be lowballing people. That's just my my feeling on this. I agree with what um John B2 said um that I I think we're gonna it's going to cost us money to get the right person. When we went through the Roger Gray process, we were willfully low and we lost some really highly qualified candidates in that process because we weren't aware of of the salary range

1:52:24 because I think Laney, isn't it true on top of this we're going to probably offer a moving compensation and dual housing and things such as that because they're not going to be able to sell their house and find a place and all that. But but to me um you know this is this organization doesn't come without challenges not the ordinary operational challenges. You you know we've got Leberg, we've got Walterville, we've got um uh Trailbridge, we we have Second Source. I mean, I can go on and on and on about the additional things that are that this general manager is going to have to face besides just running the largest public utility in the state of Oregon, but with the with the legal challenges, you know, no coal, no gas, and and this is going to be a daunting task and we're going to have to have somebody very qualified. So, I I agree with John that we're going to have to go

1:53:09 from 375 to 450. Andy, >> Laney, you recommended 350 to 450 and then we've heard some suggestions of raising it higher. Do you think that we would miss out on candidates if it was 350 to 450? >> Um, I think it's possible. It's hard to know until I start making calls, but you'll you'll find what I like to do is if somebody's close, I might say I might present them to you anyway. Again, I want to give you options. Um, so I don't know if this is a binding discussion about this is the range and you have no flexibility to go around it. If that's the case, then if we're open to it, I would encourage you to consider the higher range so that you aren't

1:53:56 arbitrarily holding it low. I don't have to advertise it that way. I can say we're hoping for 350 to 450. I mean, the nice thing about what I do is I'm soliciting interest. It's not going to be posted. I'm going to have conversation. It's iterative. If somebody does some research and says, "Boy, I probably need closer to 475. I'm going to work to keep them in the process." Is is how I usually function. >> You had your hand up. >> You did. Thank you, chair. Um, dear, are you looking for direction or emotion on this com this? >> I am I think uh at a minimum what we need from the board is direction um regarding the range to be used. um so that we can uh finalize this for uh and Laney can use it with the

1:54:43 recruiting then when she's having those conversations um board will have to give a motion and a formal approval when we come to a final candidate and their employment uh contract. >> Got it. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the uh the response. Yeah, comparator 7 was shockingly uh high uh and I think is a pretty pretty significant outlier. Um and I I'm I'm uh a little more slighted to to listen to the expertise that we we have coming in and so I'm I'm interested supporting 350 450 and also hear the flexibility that that may occur if someone is not quite exactly in that range but but nearby. So um I'm I'm comfortable with that. Thanks.

1:55:29 >> You know, again, I'm just going to reiterate, if you look at the chart, we're 6.24 below the average right now at 405. Um, so putting a 350 mark out there, you know, again, it's it's a range, but you got to pay people. You got to pay this is a billion dollar organization on an annual basis. And to have somebody that's competent in that role is going to cost us. I I just would, like I said, I she's got the the ability to to play with this, but I'm I I am for paying

1:56:14 people what they're worth to get the right person in the job. >> Well, there's part of me that that, you know, I look at this and it's surprising. Um, but also we don't know, you know, what utilities these are, how large the utilities are. Are they major utilities? I know that our comparative pool is pretty vast. Um, some of these are probably, you know, Seattle and San Francisco. I mean, those also have their own very high expense living areas. Yes, we we think of Eugene as high, but it's not high compared to some of these other locations that they're that these folks may be coming from. Um, I'm still supportive of the 350 to 450. It's not going to exclude the folks that she's recruiting because she can talk to them

1:56:59 and put it out there if it's if it's really a non-sticker. There's a lot of great things about this community that um I think we can recruit people to be here and we can always update it if we think that it's not getting the right pool of candidates. >> Personally, >> we're not going to lose this over $25,000 a year compensation. Trust me. But you gota I I'm pretty sure that none of those competitors have water, electric generation. I mean, we've got solar, we've got wind, we've got biomass, we've got every every element there that uh you know, maybe they do, maybe they don't, but we've got every gamut of the public utility sector to to deal with. So we we do see complexity with any web

1:57:45 in the utility that uh that aren't necessarily seen in all the comparators in particular the the bottom the first two comparators comparator one and two um don't have water and electric right they just have one or the other um to your point comparator 7 is the only one that is in a large urban area in uh Washington uh the rest are similarly sized to e webb more or less um in the Oregon or Washington areas. >> I also want somebody who wants to be here and if pay is the only thing and it's 25,000 that they're you know I mean there there's a lot of really wonderful things about this community and we've

1:58:30 had Frank at the salary that we've had him at and he did a fantastic job and he loves this community. there's other things besides salary that draw people to to being in Eugene. Um, so I just I don't know if if it's a non-starter at 350, I'm willing to go to 75 375 to end this conversation because I think it's kind of a moot point. We just need to pick a number and let her do her thing. So, does somebody want to make a motion? >> Just direction. >> Direction. >> I mean, it sounds like 350 to 375ish to 450 to 475ish. I mean,

1:59:15 there's that's enough for you. >> That's enough. That's enough for me. >> Yeah. 350 to 475ish and we'll call it good. >> That sounds perfect. >> All right. Um, that is it for the general management transition project today. >> Thank you. Thank you everyone. It was nice to meet all of the new folks. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. We went a little we went a little bit long there, >> but that's okay because Deborah can whip right through this long-term financial plan.

2:00:01 >> Appreciate the confidence. I'm going to let the team sit up at the table as they're going to do um most of the talking and then I'm right here uh for questions >> for all your questions. Good evening, commissioners. For the record, Himarie Harwood, financial services manager, and with me tonight are Alicia Borhees, financial planning and analysis supervisor, and Danielson, lead financial analyst. This evening, we are here to review the updated long-term financial plans for both the electric and water utilities,

2:00:46 and we are seeking board direction on the 2026 draft budgets. Next month, we will return with a more detailed draft budget document along with proposed pricing changes, and we'll hold the first of two public hearings on proposed prices. The second public hearing on prices will be in December, at which point we'll ask the board to adopt the pricing proposals and approve the final 2026 budget documents. For the past several years, the utility has made significant investments to address to address aging infrastructure while navigating high inflation rates. Balancing economic pressures with affordability continues to be a

2:01:32 challenge leading to selective riskbased and strategic project deferrals in the capital improvement plan. Annual inflation as measured by the consumer price index in August was 2.9%. Measures specific to e webb services for electricity and water however are still slightly elevated indicative of continued pressures in the energy and water sectors. Upcoming year rate proposals for both utilities will aid in EWB's ability to perform ongoing investments in reliable and resilient infrastructure to support 247 products and services. So let's dive into the details by utility and we'll have Daniel start with the electric utility. >> Thank you Tia.

2:02:21 >> So here's a summary of the electric long-term financial plan that was also included in your board packets. This plan does not incorporate implications of the new BPA contract that will be effective in October 2028. It also does not include the potential changes to permanent fish passage at Trail Bridge. In the chart on the slide, as indicated by the red shading, the power operating reserve is below target in 2026. After the January 2024 ice storm, we drew on the power operating reserve to meet cash targets. In conformance with financial policies, this reserve will be replenished in 2027. As indicated by the yellow shading, days cash is within 20 within 10% of target in 2026. Looking at the revenue requirement, the first bolded line represents the

2:03:07 unmititigated methodology of our current plan. Management remains committed to finding savings throughout the plan to keep the rate trajectory at or near the rate of inflation. The bolded bottom line represents the target trae great rate trajectory that we would achieve with the savings identified here. For the electric utility, the 2026 draft budget is about $5 million lower than 2025. The graph highlights the major budget categories. Capital spending increases are driven by improvements to substation and transmission systems. Purchase power remains the largest share of O andM split between BPA and market purchases. Lower market prices reduce both market purchases and wholesale sales revenue.

2:03:53 Additional O andM increases reflect inflationary pressures and the need to support transmission and distribution systems. Next slide, please. The overall revenue requirement for the 2026 electric draft budget is 3.9% and is necessary to meet reserve targets as well as allow the utility to adjust to inflation and prepare for infrastructure improvements. The graph shows e webb electric rates position among comparators. The e-web bill shown here uh does incorporate the BPA pass through that was incorporated this month. We anticipate other utilities will incorporate similar passroughs or rate increases. However, we don't yet know what those rate increases will be. The final cost of service analysis results will be

2:04:39 presented in November, but preliminary results show results show an $8 monthly increase for residential customers. With this increase, EW's position would remain mid-tier among regional utility comparators given mutual pressures be being experienced across the Northwest. So, now I'll pass it off to Alicia to talk about the water utility. >> Right. Presented on this slide is the summary of the water long-term financial plan, also found in your board packet. And I'd like to note that the second drinking water source is not included beyond permitting, land use, and design work. All metrics are above target, though large debt issuances to fund larger reservoir and main replacement projects as well as economic pressures are

2:05:24 anticipated to strain cash reserves towards the end of the plan. And as a result, the plan models day cash and debt service coverage becoming strained as indicated by the yellow shading. We are modeling a 10-year compounded rate trajectory of 44% with larger rate increases in the first three years of the plan. Rate increases have been smoothed wherever possible, and these gradual rate increases will better position the utility to meet near-term bumps in debt service. Water rates are expected to remain comparatively low among regional utilities, even with significant capital improvement investments. The overall rate trajectory improved since July's presentation.

2:06:10 Refinement of operational assumptions as well as capital and operating performance through the summer improved reserve projections benefiting future years in the long-term financial plan. Right. Moving on to the 2026 budget. The water utility draft budget is 8 million more than 2025. The capital budget increase is needed for uh tank and pipeline construction of College Hill Reservoir. The watershed recovery work winds down as the fee sunsets midy year next year and on O and M budget is lower due to refining assumptions and shared services allocation.

2:06:59 The overall revenue requirement for the 2026 water draft budget is 6%. And is necessary to ease pressure targets in the near term that are result of substantial amount of conventional borrowing to fund larger reservoir and transmission main projects. I want to note again that this rate increase does not include funding for the second drinking water source. The board will discuss funding for this project later this month. The bar graph shows EW Webb's water rates position among competitors and EW Webb's average monthly residential bill presented here includes the watershed recovery fee which sunsets mid year next year. The final results will be presented in November, but preliminary cost of service analysis results show an average three monthly $3 monthly increase for

2:07:45 customers. And with this increase, EW's position would remain comparatively low among regional utilities. The draft 2026 budgets total 492 million for both the electric and water utilities combined. The 23 million year-over-year increase for capital investments includes funding for key strategic priorities. Lower forecasted power prices are a primary contributor to the decrease in operations and maintenance costs, while debt service remains relatively flat year-over-year. Both utilities will be issuing debt in 2026. The electric utility will be issuing approximately 110 million and the water utility will be issuing approximately 60 million for combined

2:08:32 estimated total of 170 million of new debt issuances next year. Utility affordability is a key priority for our communities. The top graph presents the combined average water and electric bills for residential customers of some of our comparator utilities as well as the medium income and annual average utility bills of those service areas. The annualized average is then compared as a percentage of median household income which is represented by the green dots. The state of Oregon defines affordable as less than 6% on utility bills. However, EWB recognizes that some customers pay a significantly higher percentage.

2:09:18 To help financially vulnerable customers, EW has maintained programs that provide both immediate relief and long-term solutions to reduce utility bills. Historical funding and commitment for the customer care program is shown in the bar chart at the bottom. The MHI indicator is represented by the green line as the affordability measured each year and has had a slight downward trend over the past 10 years as a function of EWE bills growing at a slower pace than median household income. 2026 2.1 million has been allocated for customer care funding, an increase of 500,000 over 2025 to mitigate the funding uncertainty of the lowincome home energy assistance program.

2:10:05 This evening, after the public hearing, we will answer any questions and look for board direction on the 2026 draft budgets and prices. Next month, we will return with a more detailed draft budget document along with proposed pricing changes and hold the first of two public hearings on proposed prices. The second public hearing on prices will be in December, at which point we will ask the board to adopt the pricing proposals and approve final 2026 budget documents. Okay. Do you want to do questions before the public hearing? >> Let's open the public hearing first and then we'll be back for questions if that works. >> All right. I will open the public hearing on the draft budgets.

2:10:50 Is there anybody signed up? I will close the public hearing on the draft budgets. Okay, I'll open it up to the commission for questions or comments. Mindy, >> um, if we transfer the upriver service territory, will will that affect our budget at all? >> So, I'll go ahead and I'll take that. We're uh we're still working through a final valuation on those assets. uh there will be uh there will be a loss of revenue associated with that. Uh we will uh we would anticipate that we'll be transferring

2:11:36 uh some of our BPA tier one aotment but we'll also have a lowering of expenses and potentially uh future risk and uh other expenses uh in the in the future. So all of that is coming together but it is not represented here because we do not have those final numbers. >> TBD >> TBD. >> Okay. Thanks. That's it for now. >> Two questions. Um where do you get your numbers for medium household income between Eugene and Springfield because I know that Springfield just did a study on how they're going to deal with their budget deficit and Eugene's going through the process now and I think they have different numbers than I saw up there. So, I just wondering what what's

2:12:22 the source of your medium household income because those numbers they're using it shows Eugene's medium household income is less than Springfield's and these show a different number. >> We get those numbers from census.gov. >> Okay. The other one is what happens if we throw 160 million bucks of debt service on the water rates rough. I mean, because it's not there. I just tried to think about that. I don't know where we're at in the draft on that. We are working on those numbers. >> For every million dollar, how much of a rate increase for water? >> Every $10 million of debt is equivalent to 1.6%

2:13:07 rate increase. >> Every 10 million. So the 60 million we're adding in debt now is is um that you're adding next year is for something outside of second source. Correct. >> Okay. So, every 10 million is 1.6 >> for the water utility. Yes. >> So, if I took 16 times 1.6, I would have what that rate impact would be. What? >> 6% was $3. 6% was $3 increase. >> We I believe that the backgrounder that you will receive later this month will include uh rate trajectory and and uh bill impact. Thank you. >> So, I do want to clarify that um that

2:13:52 the amount to cover debt service um does not necessarily give us the debt service coverage. It may be enough to pay the bill, but we also need to keep an eye on our debt service coverage. So, um we will have those numbers uh October 21st. >> What's the minimum DCR on for our bond rating? So the board has set a target of 2% and with all the other or 2.0 with all of the other financial metrics and our performance that's been sufficient to maintain our uh our rating. >> Okay, thank you.

2:14:39 >> Okay, I've got a couple questions. Um, if you go back up to the slide, the the electric slide, uh, on the increases. Okay, so we're looking at 3.9 for 26 and then 9.65 for 27, 3.3, 1.7 blah blah blah. If if we were to bump up 26 to 5% to help levelize 27, that would probably lower that 9% more than the 1.1%. I'm I'm just looking at if we went an extra point up this year, it it compounds and it's less of a a big

2:15:25 bite in 27. We I we get we get call back when we have these nine 10% increases. I think we would get less call back if we did five and that could probably drop it to maybe eight or a little bit more than eight if we did it that way. Just something to think about as far as as levelizing some of these rate increases. We've done it with water. Um, I just want to throw that out there as something to think about. Um, I'm very encouraged by the fact that we're putting in more money to the customer care because of the lie heap. That was one of our my big concerns was

2:16:10 that that was going away. And what the heck are are our our low-income people going to do? Um, it sounds like we're stepping up to the plate on that. And I think that that's a story that we really need to tell. um because there is all this talk about the cuts from the the federal and the the fact that we're stepping up to the plate. We need to blow that trumpet because it's hard for us to do that and it's I think it's the right thing for us to do. Um, and then lastly in the this is something that came up in the in the thing that we got out the and it's on page eight of your of our board packet on this this thing and it was the key assumptions for the

2:16:55 the key assumptions for the electrical rate. Um the the second bullet says electrification load is approximately 26,000 megawws in 2026 increasing to 28,000 megawws in 2035. When I first read that I thought that was a typo. That's a 900% increase that we're looking at the amount of of electrons that we're putting through our system in less than 10 years. That gives me some real pause because if we're if we're looking at we're thinking electrification and all that's going to put that many more electrons through our thing, our aging infrastructure

2:17:43 that you called out earlier in the presentation is going to be stressed way beyond what we have. And are we really putting the amount of capital? Are we planning for the amount of capital for a 900% increase in the amount of power that we're doing? And I don't need the answer to that today, but that just that just blew my mind. So I don't know if you want to talk about that or if anybody can or if that can come back to us as a memo, but where is that 900% increase in load one coming from and being distributed to? The electrification forecast is based off of um electric vehicles yes adoption. Um

2:18:29 and I will say that we are modeling that we're meeting that load through conservation through 2033. It's only after that that we aren't able to to meet that load. >> But we're still need to put it through all of our infrastructure. >> Correct. And yeah, >> I just want to acknowledge that that is a really fair question. We do have folks who um I'm I'm not sure are prepared to speak about that tonight. Right. >> But that is something that unless somebody interrupts me and since they want to talk tonight, we'll be sure uh and bring back further information on that. >> Thank you. I I appreciate that. Um that's all I have for right now. Anybody else?

2:19:18 Bill. >> Yeah, thank you. I want to uh just appreciate thank you for bringing this information forward. You guys are always just the most knowledgeable about this. Uh so deeply appreciate. Um and I just wanted to acknowledge too of the customer cares. That is something that I'm constantly looking for and I'm I'm appreciative to see the increase in and the acknowledgement of the the uh federal funds that are coming or that are that are ending and uh that we are stepping up to the to the plate as Commissioner Barski said and well and truly it's in my day job I'm hearing from folks who are beginning to lose those funds, lose access to those funds and having those really intense conversations of what do they do today? And so um I think that it is a a testament to our community that e webb

2:20:04 is saying you can come to us for that. So um thank you for that. I I have a lot of thoughts that are not coherent at the moment. So I appreciate this and I look forward to bringing more thoughts later as you bring more uh information as well. So thanks. Um, do we have a sense of the the scale of the lie heap dollars that go into our community versus what portion we're able to increase to cover? >> Believe on average historically we were seeing somewhere around 1.6 million and so we're reaching 500,000. >> Okay. So, there's still going to be a very significant gap. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's what I want to know. I I appreciate that we're stepping up. I also know it's still going to mean a lot

2:20:49 of hardship in our community. Next. >> So, just to my earlier levelization, if you could bring back next month, if we were to add 1.1% increase in 26, what that would do to 27's uh increase for next month, if you could bring that back, that would be helpful for me because that may be a motion that I may put forward. 90 plus >> no to just make so the 27's rate is increases in is as large if it if it looks like it makes sense. >> Correct me if I'm wrong but the 2027 does not include three major projects as well including electric and water. Am I

2:21:34 correct in that? So the number that we're seeing here is is upon approval from this from this board that that number is the number that will come out is lower. The number on the screen is lower than what could be potentially the future in 2027. Exactly. >> I think I think they're proposing a a close to a 10% increase in 2027. That's 3% of that is preunding for Leeberg which makes is a decision that we made a few years back and 3% compounds to make it up that that high. >> So as the chart is uh constructed up there those top rate increases are unmitigated. The board has given us

2:22:19 direction to stay within the bounds of inflation. In order to do that, we would need to uh trim almost $20 million from the overall electric budget. So without taking any mitigating action, the general rate increase would be 9.65 and then lebert preunding of 3%. Is is how that chart. >> So we're at 12.65 >> with no mitigating action. That is a big number, but management is committed to taking that back and looking at what opportunities we have to mitigate that. >> And would one of the mitigating things be doing a a larger increase in 26?

2:23:06 >> It it could be. >> That's that I guess that's the number that I would ask. If we if we went up 1.1% to a 5% increase in 26, what would that bring that number down to in 27? That's what I was hoping to see because of the compounding effect that that would have. Any other questions or comments? Okay, we are on break till 7:50. Oops. >> Let's talk. Let's say 8 o'clock. Oops. I was three minutes behind.

2:31:42 upcoming electric and water long-term financial plans update. >> We just did that, didn't we? >> We got that done before the break. >> Okay. No >> annual dam update. How many become the parents? Damn safety. >> Good evening, commissioners. I'm Lisa Krenn, CEOs generation manager. Joining me at the table tonight is Laura Omen, our chief dam safety engineer and dam safety program supervisor. It is um our pleasure to provide an our annual update

2:32:29 of EWB's owner's dam safety program tonight along with uh a couple of highlights from some specific projects. And with that, I will hand it over to Laura to run through the presentation. >> Hey, commissioners. >> Hit the hit the green >> this one. Y >> Okay. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. Today I will provide an update on e webb stamp safety program. This briefing briefing will cover the owner stamp safety program. Um the fork annual inspections project updates the emergency action plan and program improvements. EWB's owner's dam safety program is the framework that ensures that dam safety is a top organizational priority with

2:33:16 clear management commitment, defined owner responsibilities, including staff training, effective communication, strong recordkeeping, and a focus on continuous improvement. We have five dedicated team members and we're fully staffed currently. This includes the chief dam safety engineer which is myself, two senior dam safety engineers, engineering associate too, and a regulatory compliance specialist. Staff responsibilities include program leadership, technical analyses, design review, regulatory interface, construction oversight and compliance and tracking and documentation. In addition, we work closely with other

2:34:02 teams within generation to ensure that dam safety is adequately addressed on all projects. Work requires that an external audit be completed every 5 years on the ODSP or owner stamp safety program. The e webb first audit was in 2019 and we completed our second audit at the close of 2024. The audit validated substantial progress since 2019 and confirmed that a dam safety culture exists throughout e webb. This can be observed by the creation of an independent dam safety team which reports to the generation manager Lisa as well as the increased awareness of dam safety throughout the organization. This includes includes dam safety

2:34:48 awareness and engagement from the e webb board. Key audit recommendations require continued focus on documentation, communication channels, and a formal ongoing staff training program. These recommendations are especially critical considering the license and dam safety driven capital projects happening at Cap Carman Smith as well as the operational challenges uh changes being planned at Liber with the decommissioning and the work being done at the Walterville development to design and construct repair at Forbay. BR conducts annual inspections of our licensed facilities as part of ongoing regulatory oversight. I'm going to

2:35:34 provide a couple of examples of inspection items. The inspection at Leeberg Walterville project highlighted the significant progress that EWE has made in vegetation management at both canals. This is an ongoing requirement which sometimes does require us to reach out to adjacent property owners for support to maintain the toe of the canal free of vegetation and other materials to provide visual inspections. At the Carmen Smith project, the annual inspection included inspection of the Trailbridge Emergency Spillway, which is shown on the right. This was followup to a previous annual inspection where we cleaned the spillway concrete blocks to allow for a good visual inspection of the concrete block

2:36:19 integrity. And on the left is the Smith conduit tunnel where we were asked to clean and remove the bofouling seen at the bottom of the canal or tunnel, excuse me. Um, this task is completed and we will monitor annually to determine how quickly the bofouling accumulates in a year's time. Ew Webb's license deployment team is responsible for the design and construction of license required projects. The dam safety team evaluates and monitors dam safety improvements needed for safe operation and provides technical guidance to the license deployment team on license required capital projects.

2:37:08 As an update on Trailbridge Dam, as you know, we discovered sinkholes in Trailbridge reservoir during rout routine bethimemetry survey in 2021. A thorough investigation of the sinkholes has been completed and submitted to FK. In November of last year, we completed an issue specific risk analysis or a QR of the potential failure modes associated with the sink holes. The workshop included FK, EW web staff, EW web consultants, and three subject matter experts on internal erosion. The goal of the analysis was to determine the risk associated with the sink holes and also review risk reduction options and next steps. outcomes confirmed that due to the geology of the site as well as EWEB's robust monitoring program that's in

2:37:54 place, the risk caused by the sinkholes is very small and can be managed effectively by use of best practices in dam safety monitoring. The dam safety team continues to monitor sinkhole activity and associated remediation at Carmen Smith. The Leeberg canal continues to be utilized for storm water conveyance. Therefore, the dam safety team continues to monitor it. The Leeberg decommissioning team is working on near-term risk reduction measures with the consultant team and that team will be back here in December to provide an update on decommissioning and near-term risk reduction measures.

2:38:40 The Walterville forbay has area of known seepage which the dam safety team and operations staff have been closely monitoring for a long time using real-time monitoring and alarming. In February of 2024, a seepage weir experienced a dramatic increase in seepage. The alarm system system notified operation staff of this increase and the canal was dewatered and has remained so while we have investigated a repair solution. The repair goal is to de decrease seepage and allow us to continue to operate the project through the license term which is the year 2040. The forbay canal liner repair is currently in the design phase. We have a dam safety workshop scheduled in October to engage FK and internal

2:39:26 stakeholders on a review of potential failure modes for the canal liner project. There are a couple of low probability potential failure modes for the Walterville Canal related to seismic and the probable maximum flood or PMF that do need to be addressed in the long term. But it remains unclear if FK will require them to be addressed in the near term. We continue to work with our consultants to better understand and characterize the risks in order to have more informed discussions on the urgency of addressing the seismic and PMF risks. And uh want to point out, please note that if the project scope does expand beyond what is currently defined and

2:40:11 authorized, we will evaluate the financial implications and return to the board for review as appropriate. The contract is um structured in phases and only the design phase has been authorized at this time. The procurement and construction phases will not be authorized until there's clear confidence in the selected path forward. Some schedule highlights. Again, the dam safety workshop is in October of 2025. Uh we're targeting end of quarter 1, 2026 for designs submitted to FUR and construction start is planned for quarter 3 of 2026.

2:41:01 E Web has an emergency action plan which details procedures for the case of a dam safety emergency. We update this annually and we review with our local emergency managers such as city, county, and upriver fire departments. In 2024, we completed a simulation exercise called a functional exercise. These are required every five years. And this year our annual review of the EAP with external part partners is scheduled for this month. This event is essential for collaboration, updating contact information and increasing knowledge of the hydro projects. In recent years, the dam safety program has faced increased regulatory complexity, heavy workloads, limited

2:41:46 resources, schedule pressures with license and review timelines, and aging infrastructure that raises the likelihood of additional repairs. Despite these pressures, the program has made measurable progress, strengthened procedures, increased staffing, dam safety expertise through consultant support, and fostering a robust dam safety culture. These accomplishments have have been made possible through the board's dedicated support. So, we want to take this opportunity to thank the board for your continued engagement, your continued support of the DA dam safety program. Your willingness to consider the necessary investments, prioritize dam safety and strategic decisions, and advocate for the program

2:42:32 has been in instrumental to our progress. Again, thank you for your engagement and support. Uh, that concludes my presentation and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you for the presentation. I'll open up for questions. Done. >> Can you remind me we have like 2.6 million budgeted for Walterville uh for the 48 construction. I mean you say construction is going to start cute 326. >> Ched the contract was for 3 million. We have spent to date uh 172,000 or so. And again that's in phases. But the intent of that contract was both design, procurement, and construction of the repair.

2:43:17 >> What about this one in a million and one in 10,000 requirement? Where does that stand in the conversation? >> Um, so I'll take us I will just say a couple highle things about that and then I'll pass it to to Laura. And we do also have Mark Zcker online as well to answer um questions. So that's one of the uncertainties that we have. That's that kind of parallel path that uh Laura talked about where right now we're in the design phase working on the for bay liner repair. Um but in addition to that we have both the seismic hazard and also the probable maximum flood uh requirements from FK that are unclear at this point what will be required between now and the end of this license term. And so we have parallel analyses

2:44:03 happening so that we can actually take some information to FK and get confirmation from them around what will be required. And I'd ask Laura to add or or change anything from that. >> No, that's accurate. Now clarify you said in this license term that's 2040 >> license expires in 204. >> They're going to keep this gun pointed at us for another 20 years. >> I'm sorry. Say that again. And the analogy I mean they're going to keep this uncertainty about our cost of of bringing into compliance until 2040 about the one 10. >> I I see what you're saying. So So yeah, we have multiple things going on. Um we have our current license that requires that expires in 2040. Our intent is to implement a repair of the foray that will take us to that license expiration

2:44:49 date of 2040. Then simultaneously with um respect to Liber decommissioning, we're going to be embarking on a strategic evaluation of the Walterville project that will allow us to deter to determine what we want to do at Walterville come the end of this license term in 2040. Various options including decommissioning or relicensing. If we were to move towards a relicensing scenario and so this will be included in the strategic evaluation, we would assume seismic upgrades are needed and um upgrades to uh align with the probable maximum flood. And so that will be a consideration in our decision to ultimately either relic or do something else with the project. Our hope is that we can get through the next 15 years

2:45:34 without making those sizable um improvements that we would not we would not ever receive a return on investment in 15 years um for that >> other questions comments. >> So I had a couple it was that was one of them the seismic and PMF. So, it sounds like if we fix the forbay, chances are they're not going to make us jump through the hoop before 2040 for PMF or the seismic. We're hoping that that's probably >> they're sort of separate but similar things. So, the 4 bay repair is one thing. Um, it's kind of like I don't know, is this an appropriate analogy,

2:46:19 Laura? When you go to remodel your house, then you need to bring it up to code. That's essentially the thing that we're um that we need to get more clarity from FK around um because the the seismic issues and the probable maximum flood aren't necessarily localized to the four bay, right? >> So I guess the question then would be would we have that certainty or or let's say a 70% certainty that we don't have to hit those before we invested in fixing the foray. Yeah, that's that's our plan is to conduct these things in parallel so that we have certainty before we pull the plug on the next phase or ultimately to construction. At some point we have to procure the liner in order to be able to

2:47:06 meet some schedule. >> Um but but we want to know for certain what we're going to be required to meet in terms of seismic or or PMF before we uh implement the next phases of the project. And so that's when Laura was saying if the scope significantly changes, we would we'll go back and and look at our business case again around uh whether the repair makes sense in the near term. >> Right. Okay. Um and do we this should probably be a question for Frank, but he won't be. When do you think we will start to look at the the question of relicensing Walterville? Well, you'll hear more about that in December when our Leeberg and our

2:47:53 decommissioning team comes back to give an update to the board. Uh we we are going to be starting that Walterville strategic evaluation. Can't remember off the top of my head when um I we were going to have it done. I think it was the end of next year. um we had some inputs that were needed why we haven't started it to date including information on seismic vulnerability and other things so that we could include those in the analysis. >> Okay, next question. And this isn't really damn safety but I've got my damn people here so I'll ask them. Um how long until Smith River Reservoir is open for angling the campground and getting in there? >> How long till it opens again? >> Yes. >> Oh goodness. Next year, next summer.

2:48:38 Mark's online. Do you next summer? Okay. Okay. >> Next summer. >> Yep. 26. >> Like opening trout season opening. Is that what we're going to hit? Shoot for >> believe. So I think a I don't know what that when that >> That's usually April. April. Yep. >> Because they're they've been growing in there for what, seven years, eight years or something? >> The big ones >> without anybody. >> We'll sample it. >> Okay. Um yeah, that's my questions. Thanks for the update. I appreciate it. It's a very important thing that we have to deal with that our new general manager, another general manager is going to have to deal with damn safety as well as Thanks. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Okay. Thank you for the presentation.

2:49:23 Um, future board agendas. I've got something that I just would like to throw out there. Um, I don't know if everybody in this room is aware, but there is a ballot initiative that's gone that has been approved to go to the ballot. It's called the watershed bill of rights, which basically gives watersheds the right basically the rights of people. Um, it would have an absolutely devastating impact on a lot of the work that we do. It would allow for people to

2:50:10 litigate against anybody that does any type of impact to any watershed. Um, I think we need to have Jason look into that and bring us back a a report or a memo on the impacts that that may have on us and how we may want to weigh in on that because that's going to be coming up. I think is I don't know if it's in the probably be in the May election. You think it'll be no I don't know if it'll be November. Wouldn't be this November, but I think it's going to be in the May. But it's gotten it's qualified for the ballot. It's gotten enough signatures. It's a Lane County initiative. It's not a state initiative. It's a Lane County initiative. And it's

2:50:56 it's very uh I'll just say it has it has implications that could affect us directly as a as our thing. So, I I think we need to flag that and bring it in as I don't know if it needs to be an agenda item, but it definitely needs to be something that we can have at least a memo on. Other comments or questions as far as future board agendas. >> I'd just like to speak to what you just I think that's important enough to make it a agenda item because that will affect any of our wershed restoration or like Courtz Creek and things like that. if somebody doesn't like what we're doing, they can sue us and uh and you know, the last thing we need to be is is restricted on our watershed enhancement

2:51:42 efforts and things like that. It was to me I think I'd like to personally get a lot more information on it and find out what's going to happen whether or not we should take positions. So you're looking for a head nod, you got mine. >> Okay. All right. Anybody else on agendas? All right. Board wrapup. We will go around the room. Tim, Indie, Sonia, Don, thank you. Thank you, Deborah, for sitting in and and taking the uh heat from all of us. Appreciate it. Do we have a we don't have another work there was a tenative work session for later this month. Is that there is a work session on the 21st?

2:52:27 >> Okay. So, then we will see you at that. With that we are adjourned.