EWEB Board of Commissioners — February 3, 2026

0:02 2026 uh regular meeting of the Eugene Water Electric Board to order. Um welcome. And uh first agenda item is uh the agenda check. And in doing so, I think I've been advised by fellow commissioners that we have uh public input this evening. We've got 20 minutes scheduled >> here. Got 20 minutes scheduled. I apologize. And uh so we got 20 minutes scheduled. We've got 31 people signed up. And right now our allocation is three minutes. That's an hour and a half. Um, we have I have several options by board policy. I can say that we can take our allocated time divided by the number of people or I can cut testimony from 3 minutes to two minutes or we can have uh consideration to just extend this uh and it's the will of the board. So, I'm opening that up to you before we go up

0:48 into any other agenda items. to see what we do because logistically it's we're not going to make it 20 minutes and I don't want to cut anybody off. I want to give everybody the opportunity to be heard. So, um I I'll just go around. Minnie, what what is your will? Extend uh extend the public input. I cut the time from three minutes to two or um you have a choice. Tim need an answer. >> Oh, sorry. I was looking agenda. >> I'm looking for input. I'm looking for feedback decision. >> I would support um either extending public uh input uh time or uh bringing it down to two minutes. >> Well, okay. >> That's like how long answer I would I would support bringing it to. >> Which which one would you prefer? >> Two minutes.

1:33 >> Two minutes. Okay, Mindy. >> Two minutes. >> John, what my hope would be? Yes, definitely shorten it to two minutes. I would also maybe put a cap at 45 minutes. We have a lot of other items on the agenda, but I'm willing that and then the other thing is if the people who are speaking tonight um if a if if you could be shorter than two minutes that would be help more people get into it and if you if somebody has already said something that you said you could get up there and say I believe what he says or I'm opposed to what he but whatever. Um, but I would say definitely the two minutes and at some some forward a cap. If nothing if not 45 minutes, one hour that's that will almost get us in

2:19 if we can be judicious. Okay, Sonia, >> I You're muted. >> You're muted. >> I'm not muted. >> We can't hear you. That doesn't do me any good. I can't read lips, so help me. Um, are you okay? Two two minutes. Is that a thumbs up? Is two minutes a thumbs up? No, >> two minutes is fine. >> Extend it. >> You want to extend? Okay. So, we've got >> This isn't working. >> We're gonna have to solve this problem because she wants input later on all of

3:04 these items. And so, >> all right. So, I'll make a motion to extend the public uh testimony for one hour to from 20 minutes to one hour and 1 hour maximum and have two minute uh time limit for our speakers to speak. >> There a second. >> Second >> discussion. >> All those in favor signify by raising your hand. Opposed? >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. So, we're gonna cut it to two minutes and please try and and help us get through this. Um, Ann or Holly, could you try and work out this problem with with step >> with Sonia so we can uh have her there. So, before we I open uh the next thing

3:49 for I want to just do the facility safety awareness and meeting logistics briefing. I want to thank everybody for attending the meeting. Uh we have e web management and subject matter experts are present in the room virtually. The meeting is being streamed live and recorded. Please speak loudly and clearly so everyone can hear you. Public testimony is welcome. Signup forms are available at the back of the room. Visitor access is limited to the board meeting room and restrooms. Restrooms are located on the first floor. Exit through the righth hand door at the right of the room and cross the hallway. In the event of an emergency, such as fire security incident, follow all instructions given by staff. Evacuation is required. Please calmly proceed to the nearest safe exit as identified and directed by staff and evacuate away from the building to the farthest points in the parking lots to allow clear and immediate access for first responders. So the next agenda item is item for board members and the general manager.

4:35 Mindy >> uh nothing >> John pass or try Sonia. Anything from you Sonia? It's still not working yet. Okay. Um Frank, welcome back. >> Thank you President Brown. Just just one quick item. I did want to thank uh assistant general manager Deborah Hart and staff for filling in for me for the last couple weeks while I was out. So other than that, I'm glad to be back. >> Okay, welcome. And uh that that'll do it for that and I'll just hold off for Sonia. Um next agenda items, correspondence. >> Commissioners, there were two items of correspondence. Uh these are bothformational. Um, if you do have

5:20 questions, um, given the amount of of time in the agenda, we can follow up with any additional questions either, uh, later or during our check-ins. Uh, the the two agenda items, one had to do, um, with the update of the legislative session and and various, um, u different bills in different stages that we're monitoring. Uh the other one had to do with uh a number of different updates associated with the Wamment water treatment plant and really appreciate Karen Kelly and her staff for providing that. And if you do have any other questions, uh we'd be happy to follow up with you on those. >> Okay, that >> can can you hear me now? >> We got you. Go ahead. >> Okay. I just wanted to do the test

6:06 quick. I logged out and logged back in. Apparently that did the trick. Did you did you have anything for the good of the order from? >> No, I'm going to leave that alone. >> Okay. And so and you know that we we put it back to two minutes maximum an hour >> for public test. >> I understand. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh the next agenda item is going to be the public input and I'll read the preamble. I'm going to welcome you to the public input session of the meeting. It's a public nonprofit organization whose charter is to deliver drinking water and electricity to our community. Although this forum is not used for an open back and forth dialogue, commissioners and staff value hearing a diverse perspectives and receiving community input. Speakers are asked to keep their testimony relevant to e web business and request that everyone share their comments in a productive and respectful manner. Should speakers or audience members become disruptive, they

6:51 may be muted and or removed from the meeting. At this time, we have 31 uh um I don't know how many we have 31 total people requesting to speak to. When your name is called, you'll have up to two minutes to provide your comments. Public session is now open and I'll start with the people online uh on on phone and the first is Andrew Simron. >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> We can. You have two minutes. >> Would you like me to begin now? Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh hello commissioners. My name is Andrew Simron. I reside in the River Road neighborhood ward 7. Um, I'm coming to you tonight with a concern about the pilot with the University of Oregon to spin up a turbine to generate

7:36 electricity. Um, I think that Eb must cancel the pilot immediately. Increase localized uh emissions uh impacting air quality along the greenway that I frequent when riding my bicycle. Uh and we know that um there are many other ways to bring uh power onto the grid. Um and if we're concerned about resilience, we focus on uh demand response policies. um with with more technologies and smart meters, you know, this will be easier to roll out and can help with

8:23 and shifting the load as well to when we have more removable. >> You ask him to turn it. I can't hear. >> Could you try and speak up a little bit? Uh Andrew? >> Yes. Uh, can you hear me better now? >> Yeah, you got about 30 seconds. >> Okay. >> Uh, well, uh, anyway, I would just Eb should cancel the pilot immediately. Uh, we know that, uh, there's other ways to bring demand like things like demand response to fit the load for peak load. And uh we need to be looking at policies to build out local renewable energy generation such as geothermal. And we

9:09 know that we aren't expecting supply shortages and especially that we are a tier tier one BPA customer. Uh we know that they provide mostly clean hydro power uh that has low carbon intensity. So again, please cancel the pilot with you all immediately. >> Thank you very much, Andrew. The next speaker is Rio Davidson. Hi, my name is Rio Davidson. Uh, coming to you, uh, I wanted to talk to the commissioners about the measure here that we're talking about tonight. I feel that your duty is, uh, source water protection and public health, especially for McKenzie's Eugene primary drinking water source. I wanted to speak about aerial pesticide

9:54 spraying and other industrial activity that occurs every spring and fall in parts of McKenzie wershed. Unfortunately, there's drift and runoff that can carry chemicals into the waterways. I'm concerned especially about the amount of chemicals being used on our wershed. Each clear cut on our waterershed is sprayed over multiple years. I'm also concerned about the latest research and the amount of forever chemicals that are being used in pesticides. The study on the safety of these chem chemicals is run by the chemical companies. I've done a lot of research and know for a fact that these chemicals are not safe for our drinking water. Organ allow Oregon law allows spraying to be done far too close to water sources such as the Mackenzie River. There have been multiple accounts of drift from these aerial spraying

10:39 operations documented in Oregon. Triangle Lake area has been dealing with this issue from so some time. Gold Beach also had an incident a few years ago where an entire rural neighborhood was subject to drift from aerial spraying. The idea that we're applying these pesticides to our wersheds is alarming and unsafe. This uh measure will help the community to protect our wersheds from this direct harm. The current system of Oregon laws written by the chemical companies to protect them and their profits. is again a way of subsidizing the chemical companies and socializing the high cost of the harm where it is left to e webb and the rate payers to try and clean the water that is being contaminated by the timber industry. Only when this practice of aerial spraying is stopped can we be

11:25 certain of the safety of our drinking water. We all live downstream. help protect our wershed for the children and families that depend on ELB for clean water. >> To the commissioners, I ask them to listen to the count the citizens of the county. They've signed a position to the petition to move this law into public by a vote on May 19th. >> Thank you. >> So, um the next is Victor. can >> All right.

12:10 >> You there? >> Yes. Yes, I Yeah, I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Your time is started. Your time has started. Thank you. >> All right. Basically, uh, we worked really hard to get that petition signed, the 2373 to give Mother Nature rights and protect the watershed, and that needs to be done. All the people of Lane County need to vote on it. They're all affected. There are all kinds of chemicals running into the McKenzie River, and we've got to clean it up. We've got to protect it. If EWB wants to do anything, they should be part of it and endorse it because your job is to protect the watershed. Protect the water. You need to, if

12:56 anything, endorse 20 373 and let all of Lane County vote on it to do the same. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Victor. Next is Emma Bartlett. >> Hi. Um I live in Eugene Ward 7. Um I'm here to urge Eb to cancel the pilot program with UOO utilizing um their fossil fuel generator. Um I moved to Eugene for my dream job which is working for a wave renewable energy company. Um and very quickly um you know my view of good renewable energy equals good fossil fuel equals bad that became

13:43 a lot more nuanced. Um I definitely have an understanding that we can't effectively combat the climate crisis and meet the demands of um our communities unless we utilize some imperfect solutions. um this seems to be the justification posed in um the article posted to EW Webb's website about this pilot program, but um I believe that this statement was misleading and based on the information I've seen elsewhere um this is not actually an unfortunate means to a net benefit, but um is actually going to set us back um years into the future. Um, I

14:29 think that from what I've seen, the premise of this being necessary for peak demand in the future is dubious. um that the uh claim that it would displace less efficient and more carbonintensive natural gas generators um could be true, but I would really think that the community deserves to see a lot more um actual numbers there. And um I get that this is appealing to have power available tomorrow. Um but it opens the door to utilizing this. Um opening this door will in all likelihood lock in additional fossil fuels, combustion, and

15:16 give web and UO an easy out on their climate commitments. >> We need to do the hard thing. Set up our community with cleaner options. >> Your time is up. Thank you. Appreciate it. Jack Dodson. >> Jack, are you there? >> Can you hear me? >> We can. Thank you. Your time is starting at two minutes. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll keep this short. Um, I'm also calling to oppose the pilot project with the University of Oregon. um this is going to increase local emissions you know on the slim chance that it you know lowers statewide emissions which I'm sorry all of the because of the lack of transparency around this from both Eb and from the

16:02 university makes me very skeptical skeptical about the claims being made. Um, it would have been nice to let rate payers know. Also, everybody's banned in war three. Um, it would nice it would have been nice to let rate payers know more information about this pilot program earlier on and given us the chance to comment then. Um, I'm also worried about like the health impact from increased air pollution and I think that web needs to be prioritizing renewable energy, not falling back on gas. Thank you. >> Thank you. The next be Andrea Stapleton. >> Hi. Yes, I'm here. >> Thank you. >> So, yeah, thanks. My name's Andrea Stapleton and I'm located in Ward 8. Um,

16:48 I'm also the operations manager for the Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides or ENCAP and I'm calling in behalf of this organization. Uh for nearly 50 years, INCAP has worked to protect public health, clean water, and the Northwest ecosystems from pesticide harm. Uh a supporter reached out to us with concerns regarding EW's apparent move to oppose the Lane County Wershed Bill of Rights through a process that appears rushed and closed to public input. Uh EWD's core responsibility is protecting our drinking water and public health, especially the McKenzie River, Eugene's primary drinking water source. Uh and the risks here are not hypothetical. Aerial pesticide spraying

17:33 and other industrial activities still occur in parts of the McKenzie wershed and chemical drift and runoff can enter our waterways. So we are here to ask EW Webb to please slow down before taking any position. Uh please delay your vote. conduct due diligence including outreach to the campaign and chief petitioners and hold a public process with time for public comment. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you Natalie Stamov. >> Natalie, are you there? >> I know Natalie was one of the three or four that didn't acknowledge when you're doing check. >> She's not there.

18:18 All right, we'll skip Natalie and she comes in, we'll jump her back into the queue. Sarah Alvarez. Sarah, are you there? Okay, we'll skip Sarah. Isa Eisenberg. >> Hi there. >> Is this Isa Isa? Yes, as you said, >> um I'm here to bit to give public comment on behalf of myself as well as some members of the student group climate justice league. >> I believe that e webb as a public utility has a unique position to support and collaborate with our community for effective climate solutions and the boiler pilot program with the University

19:05 of Oregon is not an example of this. Um I believe it should be cancelled and additional steps to create transparency and input and collaboration with the community should be implemented. It is causing negative health impacts for our community and I don't believe that the reasoning e webb has put forward um for the program is making sense. I think additional research should be done or um additional transparency and public in input should be had. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Um Anakah Sanica,

19:59 >> We'll skip Anakica and go to Drew Thomas. >> Hi, Drew Thomas here. Um, thank you for this chance to uh to speak for the wershed. I'm really uh heartened to hear so many others speaking out. Um, it's a it's a really special place here. Uh, and this Lane County watershed Bill of Rights uh has been a long time coming. Um, I think that uh you know this this is an opportunity to to stop aerial spraying. Um, others have gone into and to do um a lot as to um the science behind that. Um, but I think that I think that we all know that the water needs to be um protected and that we do all live downstream. Um, I think that this is a really unique opportunity for the citizens to speak out and I would

20:45 hate to see um I would hate to see Eb um oppose measure 2373 uh without um without due diligence um without sharing um publicly sharing reasons why what the concerns would be um because uh from what I can see the public seems to be very into this. So, uh, my ask today is that, uh, is that you delay the vote, um, and spend more time considering, uh, the Lane County Wershed Bill of Rights. Um, thank you for the chance to call in. Uh, there's plenty of others in the room with me here, uh, who appreciate this chance to call in, too. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Drew. Okay, that concludes our online um, on the phone testimony. Is anybody that we skipped come back in?

21:34 We have oneident one unidentified number who has called in and so I don't know which one of the three it may be but I'm assuming it's none of them and a mystery person. >> Okay. Well, we'll just keep going and you tell me what there. All right. The first uh in person speaking is Jean. I apologize if I butcher anybody's last name. I'll do the best I can. uh Dexos Enos and then followed by Rob uh Dick Picket. >> Sorry, this is my first time here. Is this >> Yeah, right here at the podium if you would please. And you have two minutes. Let me sit down and time will start. Try to compress my comments because of

22:19 the situation we have today. Um first, uh I have uh my name is Genos. I live in the uh ward 4 Calo neighborhood. Two uh things I'd like to speak about this evening. I'm concerned about the added fee and uh charges for the new uh smart meters. U I think e webb needs to be more clear on what's going to be done. It was implemented supposedly this month and in talking to customer service the as far as I'm aware of at today they do not know when or the cost or fees that will be associated with maintaining a manual read on the meters. My second item is um

23:08 I'm uh I saw the re region rec recent article in register guard regarding the pilot program with the University of Oregon and e webb um I'm looking at the future and uh as per the article it said natural gas generated in the coldest winter months can bolster grid reliability when demand for energy across the region is high. However, in the same article, EWB commission study reported the entire Pacific Northwest is at risk of energy shortfalls with that risk increasing every year as per Brian Booth, EW Webb chief energy resource officer. Uh, at this time, I'm asking Ew Webb, what specific issues has EWB identified to improve and strengthen the grid reliability? Is the contribution of the 530X smart meter program part of this effort? Is EW

23:55 Webb considering expansion of gas turbine generation and what future costs and savings can customers expect within EW service area in the Pacific Northwest? EW Webb has a long history of being a reliable partner to Eugene. I hope the board continues to balance the need of system upgrades with the very real and impactful economic pressures facing your customer owners. Thank you. >> Thank you very much Enos. >> Next is Rod Dickinson. followed by uh Aaron Neilton. >> Hello, my name is Rob Dickinson with Protect Lane County Wersheds and speaking in support of measure 20-373. I'm here tonight because we were disappointed to see Eb considering a resolution opposing this measure. Since

24:42 that's where things stand, I'd like to briefly address those concerns and ask the board to slow down and take a more deliberative process before voting. Measure 20-373 establishes the Lane County Wershed Bill of Rights. At its core, it does three things. It it recognizes the rights of our wershed to exist and flourish free of pollution. It recognizes residents rights to clean drinking water. And it restricts corporate activities that would violate those rights. This measure is aimed at serious industrial harms, particularly clear cutlet logging and aerial pesticide spraying that threaten people, wildlife, and water quality. Many people involved in this campaign have spent have seen these impacts firsthand over many years. Ew's constructive watershed protection work has never been the target of this measure. Much of the concern seems to

25:29 stem from fear that e-web projects could face legal challenges. But legal action requires substantial evidence of real harm and experienced environmental attorneys have told us it is highly unlikely that eb would be affected absent such harm. Lawsuits are expensive. They're risky for those bringing them and courts already have tools in place to dismiss frivolous claims. organiz organizations acting responsibly towards watersheds are on solid ground. Meanwhile, the harms this measure addresses are happening now, affecting community health, wildlife, and long-term watershed resilience. Our biggest concern tonight is the process. This resolution is being considered without full community input and without giving proponents a clear opportunity to respond to specific

26:14 concerns. We are working with experienced legal experts who would gladly address these concerns, but we haven't had that opportunity and it doesn't look like we will if the resolution is voted on tonight. So, we respectfully ask you to delay the vote, share your concerns in detail publicly, and engage the community in a fuller discussion t before taking a position. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Aaron Nielsen, held by Jerry Rosen. Hello, my name is Aaron Nelson. I'm a part of Protect Lane County's watersheds. I'm a passionate member of the community who cares about the environment. As a young person, the climate crisis is deeply anxiety producing. Um, I'm deeply troubled by

27:00 it. Uh, with all that Eb does for the environment and protecting the watersheds under current regulations, it still allows pollutants. I match what everyone else has said. The spraying um the industrial activity to enter the watershed through runoff is very concerning for generations. We need to start thinking about generations in the future, not just right now. Um the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it is on average 27 times more expensive to deal with a drinking water contamination problem than to implement strategies for protection. Um, measure 20-373 gives back nature its inherent rights and the community the ability to protect these rights. Um, I'm also deeply troubled by EW's rush in this response, not doing due diligence

27:46 and um, being a communityrunowned company, but it seems like you're making these decisions behind closed doors that you've already made a decision to oppose this before this public forum making a vote on it tonight. I ask you to delay this vote this evening um so you can engage the public um in due process and it seems there are other members at play here potentially big business. It seems there's a running theme here that there isn't a lot of transparency going on. So I'd like to ask for transparency um to be able to outreach to everybody before taking an official stance to oppose this measure. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Jerry Rosener

28:31 held by Christina Shaw Shu. Good evening. Uh my name is Jerry Rosemire. Uh my wife and I have been e web rate payers for almost 40 years and uh 100% green power participants for almost that time. And I am puzzled. Oh, and I live in W 8 and I'm dep puzzled and disappointed that the board is considering opposing measure 2373. As I understand it, Eb's founding principles were local accountability for

29:17 local resources. And that's exactly the same guiding principles of measure 2373. At your last meeting, several of you stated that you felt the measure was too broad. Well, the measure certainly takes a different approach to humans interaction with the natural world than previous legislation and regulations. But as I'm sure you all understand, today we live in a different and more perilous time than when e webb was chartered. It's time when more and more people are aware that environmental overshoot is threatening not only water resources but the very ability of the natural world to

30:03 exist and regenerate. Uh each of us here speaking tonight on behalf of measure 23 2373 represents thousands of e webb rateayers who signed the petition to get this measure on the ballot and who agree that something more needs to be done to protect our watersheds. So I would strongly urge you to go slower uh on your deliberations and your decisions to draft to to agree to this proposal. >> Thank you. Thank you. Christina Shu,

30:48 followed by Eric. >> Good evening. My name is Christina Shu and I live here in Lane County. I'm here tonight simply as someone who depends on clean water and cares about the future of our local environment. When I saw that EW was planning to vote on a resolution opposing measure 2373, I was really surprised because many residents see this measure as part of a larger effort to protect the watersheds our communities rely on. My concern isn't just about the position EWB might take, but about how quickly this decision seems to be moving. Many residents are only now learning about the resolution, and supporters of the

31:33 measure haven't really had a chance to respond to the concerns being raised before a vote is being scheduled. From what I understand, the measure is aimed at preventing largecale industrial activities that damage watersheds. Things like extensive clear cutting and pesticide spraying that affect our water quality, wildlife, and long-term ecosystems. These impacts are already being felt in parts of our county. I understand there are worries about unintended consequences for public agencies, but legal action still requires evidence of real harm and lawsuits are not something people bring about lightly. Courts already dismiss weak claims and organizations working

32:18 responsibly to protect water resources should not suddenly become targets. So my request tonight is simple. Please slow this process down. Give the community time to understand the issues, share concerns, and allow all sides to respond before e-wave eb takes a formal position. Thank you so much for your time and for listening. >> Thank you, Eric. Followed by Janet. >> Hi, my name is Eric Jur. I live in W 6. Um, two things. Um, uh, first with regard to the watershed resolution. Um, I went to the the website uh that has a

33:05 copy of the of the resolution looking for information. I read the resolution. I'm not a lawyer by any means. I certainly support the goals of the of the resolution. Um, I've been in support of protecting the environment and dealing appropriately with the effects of climate change and all of those sorts of things my entire life. Um, however, there's not a lot of information about um like the background for this, where it where it came from, who wrote it, uh, and those sorts of things. And so, as some of the speakers have have pointed out this evening, they need more time to explain it. I I certainly hope that will be the case. It's going to be on the ballot. We're going to vote on it. So, I hope that there's more information forthcoming about it because as it stands right now, uh, I I agree with that. It's it's too broad and and would be very difficult to enforce. The other thing I'd like to mention has to do with

33:50 the um um pilot program with regard to the University of Oregon's power generation uh system. Um I think that uh uh the idea behind it we uh AWeb's motivation for doing the pilot studying is correct. I think we need to uh take a look at all possible sources of energy um especially for times where there could be could possibly be rolling blackouts. I realize this is I understand that it was a response to studies that have that have had that have been done re recently that look at specific uh weather conditions and so forth that could make um um electrical energy scarce from from the many sources that e-web has and so I think that's the right thing to do. I think the article in today's uh outlook was misleading. I

34:37 think it le led people to believe that this was going to be a long-term arrangement that was going to rather than something that would be used only occasionally and for short periods of time to uh help u uh e-web and our customers most importantly weather um short-term power outages and I think that's I think that's that's a good thing to do. Thank you. >> Followed by Katie Giser. >> Thank you. I'm Janet's e web customer for nearly going on 45 years now. And since you're the only utility, you kind of want to not appear to be a monopoly

35:23 and certainly listen to all the constituents tonight that have spoken. I want to start off that I concur totally with everything that Jean Enos mentioned about the smart meter. I'd like the newsletter you send out to include the operative cost that's being passed on s uh covertly to the customers. my bill. I'm on uh my social security. I'm in retirement now. Medicare went up. I lost $2 a month this year. I went backwards instead of forward. So for the year 2025, I noticed that uh your rate increases totaled nearly 11% yet nationally the inflation rate, I don't know if they tie together, but I believe

36:08 they do, 2.7%. So quite a quantum difference in the inflation nationally the rate and what uh e webb is charging us. Please keep an eye on that for uh those of us that are on fixed incomes. We can't beat that race. The other thing I want to bring up real quick is um the customer care program. That is a race for the fastest. I don't know if you know how that works, but on the first Monday of the month, you have to be prepared to dial rapidly to get in. And I was told by one of the e webb clerks that that program is usually booked out within the first 8 seconds.

36:56 How do seniors who are affected the most with coordination mobility features even begin to run that foot race? Please offer an alternative those of us that are not speed dialers. Thank you, My name is Katie Geyser and I'm with Protect Lane County Watersheds. Uh, thank you EW Webb for your many years of dedicated service and hard work. Um, which cannot be overlooked. But what is being overlooked is the

37:43 people's desire for greater protection of our watersheds. Today is an opportunity for the board to support our community in this desire. These times require us all to look at the rules, regulations, and laws that guide us and evaluate how well they serve us. It's time to free ourselves from laws and institutional structures which hold us captive to harmful outcomes. We do not want to continue forward bearing the consequences of inadequate water protection. There are those in our community who have died or suffered grave injury to their health due to toxic exposure. We deserve better. Thousands of Lane County voters signed this petition. Commissioners, join your

38:29 community and take the lead in this effort. You have the ability to guide the next steps, to troubleshoot, and to ensure a positive outcome. It's time for the commission to say yes to measure 2373 and be the be on the forefront of ensuring a higher quality of water for Lane County. Short of giving support to this measure today. Uh we ask that you uh slow down your process and um give it more serious consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you. Homeman followed by Lily Po Lily Pearl Trust.

39:17 >> Yeah. Michelle Holman. I'm one of the three chief petitioners for the uh 2373. We wrote this law because we want better protections for nature. We want a new baseline based on the rights of the entire watershed. The rights of nature movement has been gaining moment momentum since 1990. 651 rights of nature initiatives have been passed in 58 countries including more than 150 in the US according to the ecojurisprudence monitor. Eweb is concerned primarily with the na the needs of rateayers. We maintain that rateayers and citizens enjoy many benefits including good health when the natural world is protected. We believe current regulatory standards are too low permitting for allowable amounts of pollution to which

40:02 we the people never consented. Eb commissioners tell us they are in compliance with water testing standards. I believe you. But compliance levels are set by the state and feds which are based on legislation relating to practices like pesticide spraying. Existing law doesn't allow for challenging existing regulatory standards. Measure 2373 is an innovative way to raise standards for clean water. And if your projects are not harming the wersheds, you've nothing to fear. This is not just about e webb. This is also about the county. I live out in the coast range. From Oakidge to Florence, let the voters decide. It's messy to make new changes. It's messy to change law. Yeah, we know that.

40:48 But it's just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. It's time for a change. >> Thank you. >> Followed by Bernardet Barasa. >> Good evening, commissioners. My name is Lily Pearl Johnson. I've been a ew payer since 1999 and I live in Ward 7. Thanks for this opportunity to speak to your group. I I read Commissioner Barovsky's resolution in opposition to measure 20-373 and I got the impression that he's worried that EWB might have to do some additional work in order to comply with the new law if it passes. And to that my response is any new rule is going to require time and effort more so than

41:36 than current at the outset. As a public utility, one of EWEB's primary responsibilities is to be be a protective steward of clean drinking water for our community. Water is life, and we humans cannot make any more of it. Therefore, it behooves all of us, especially Eb, to adopt the very highest possible standards of care for our precious water sources. In order to preserve public trust on this issue, Eb needs to slow down and hold a true public process before they vote. That would include scheduling a dedicated public forum, taking written comments for a set period, and delaying any vote on measure 2373 till this process is complete. Rate payers are watching, and EWB's current approach reads as

42:21 dismissive and non-transparent. Measure 2373 is designed to protect Lane County's wersheds and ensure long-term access to clean drinking water, a goal that EWB should be aligned with. The risks are real. Aerial pesticide spraying and other industrial activities still occur in parts of the McKenzie watershed shed. Spray drift and runoff can carry chemicals into creeks and rivers and then into the water that we drink every day. Thank you. >> Followed by Jim New. >> You didn't even try to say my last name. >> Baraso. >> Oh, Bernardet Baraso. Thank you. Um,

43:07 I've been concerned about poisons in our environment since the late60s when Terra Chemical was releasing toxins into the Missouri River where it wound its way through my hometown of Sous City, Iowa. Uh, today I'm supporting this measure obviously and we do need more time to talk to each other. So, I'm trying to cram my little thought my thoughts into this short period of time, but even with your support, you know that corporate America, especially the timber industry, is going to spend big bucks on big billboards and convince people to vote against the measure. And even if the measure passes by some miracle, it's going to be

43:54 challenged immediately with appeals and everything. And this this kind of behavior where corporate rights are more respected than people's rights really bothers me. Corporations have the right to make money and we can't infringe on that. So this could wind its way all the way up to the Supreme Court and still be thrown away because we don't have the right to keep toxins out of our water. That's the bottom line. Or out of our environment and that's wrong. So I think we're living in an age where people with power like you people here that can they can vote to support us or not um you know you need to have some courage

44:40 and just believe that good things can happen and all of the rest of it is excuses. We're in an era of excuses. There's always reasons not to. It's to this or not enough that. And when is that going to change? How about now? >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Commissioners and staff, my name is Jim New. Um I live in Commissioner Carlson's ward. I listened to the January e-web meeting online and was disappointed in

45:25 the lack of public information provided regarding the watershed bill of rights. Commissioners had conversation about what was to be included in the ballot measure, but the public was left trying to figure out what you were referring to as there was no attachment in the agenda explaining the issue or anything that was even an upcoming ballot measure. Disappointing. When I was part of the e webb community table meetings and formulating key decisions on future resource adequacy regarding the BPA contract, public input and consensus were important to e webb staff in making their decisions. The community group response opposed future local electricity generation that was nuclear, specifically SMRs and was dirty methane gas derived. Yesterday's Zeb newsletter stated that Uovo and EW Webb are considering a joint pilot

46:11 project where the utility would purchase fossil fuel derived electricity generated by a Uovo large methane gas turbine. This is the first time EW Webb has mentioned this and is not at a commission meeting. According to Uovo sustainability director and former Eb commissioner Steve Mattal, this gas turbine would generate 65% more fossil fuels emissions from one of the largest carbon emitters in the county. Why assemble a public community table and ignore their recommendations? Was this an exercise in checking all the boxes? This proposed methane gas turbine pilot program does not align with the state of Oregon's climate reduction goals, nor to the goals of the city of Eugene climate recovery ordinance or those of EW Webb's own board strategic direction policy 15. With no previous commission meeting

46:56 discussion, were the commissioners even aware of this pilot project? Being that EWB is a public utility, the public deserves an opportunity to learn the details and information the commission is reviewing in order to make their decisions. The shareholders are the customers need to be able to have a public comment and voice their concerns before decisions are made. Let's keep transparency part of the public utility process. Thank you. >> Next, followed by Mark Rabenovitz. >> Good evening, commissioners. My name is Nick. >> PSG Kenna UO. I'm a rate pair of W 7 and I'm someone who takes seriously the words of your own bylaws. Those bylaws state that Eb's principal purpose is to benefit the citizens of Eugene, not the

47:42 institution, not the organization, the citizens. I'm here tonight because I think there's a growing gap between what Eb says it stands for and how this board perhaps actually governs. Eb was built uh EW Webb has built a brand around environmental stewardship. You talk about the watershed protection and sustainability. You tout the Mackenzie River Source Protection Program. Your commissioners hold degrees in environmental studies. You have focuses in sustainability. Many of you run nonprofits dedicated to recycling, conservation, public good. On paper, this board looks like exactly the kind of leadership who would champion clean water protection. And yet when measure 2373, the wershed bill of rights, comes before this community, a measure that would give citizens real enforcable tools to protect water that e webb

48:28 itself is supposed to be delivering. This board may find reasons to resist it. So I have to ask, if your mission is to serve citizens, why would you oppose a measure that gives those citizens stronger tools to protect their own water? If ew is already doing its job well, what exactly does ew have to fear from accountability? I urge this board to make its decision regarding measure 20373 transparent, public and diligent. This is done through scheduled and documented public forums. The citizens spoke up in your own bylaws deserve absolutely nothing less. That was my bridge version. Thank you so much.

49:21 So, I'm going to have a unique view. Half a mile south of here 20 years ago, I tried to use the Clean Water Act to prevent the West June Parkway. And when it went away in 2007, the Clean Water Act had nothing to do with its demise. It was a much better law from 1966 called 4F of the Transportation Act which actually prevented pollution as opposed to regulate it. And I really wish I could support this ballot measure initiative, but there's nothing specific in enabling a transfer of authority from DEEQ and EPA to Lane County, which doesn't even have a water pollution uh regulatory agency. This is the fourth ballot measure for

50:07 quote community rights in our area. And the other three were knocked out in court and we could instead change the law to prevent aerial spraying of herbicides, bioides, but that opportunity has been missed several times and this unfortunately does not do it. does not even say who would enforce these things other than vague references to a judicial process. I'm not a big fan of judicial processes. I think our legal system is all screwed up in countless ways that we could spend years talking about. But overturning the Constitution of Oregon and the United States is beyond

50:53 the purview of a ballot measure such as this. Um, and most importantly, to quote David Brower in his last appearance in Eugene in 2000, at our best, we have slowed the rate things get worse, and that's not good enough for our survival. And if we're really at the phase of mass extinction, we have to be careful in designing laws that are going to prevent this. Thank you. Followed by Santiago.

51:39 Hi, I'm Sue Pledgy and I live in W six. All water within the state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public. That's Oregon law. Eweb is chartered by the city of Eugene to serve the interests of its citizens. Eb is owned by the people. As stewards of the water for the people of Eugene and Springfield, why are you opposing this measure? The purpose of measure 2373 is to stop bad actors who pollute our rivers and watersheds that feed them because it is cheaper for them to do so rather than implement environmentally sound practices.

52:24 As was mentioned earlier, it's 27 times more difficult to clean up water once it's been polluted than it is to mitigate the pollution before it happens. The risk of water pollution is real and it's happening now. What will be the cost and who will bear it if as degragation of our watersheds continues? The status quo is not good enough. I urge you to stay neutral at the minimum regarding measure 2373 and let the measure to protect our waters and the health and well-being of our community to go forward as intended. I it it comes to mind that I live not too far away from here, a couple miles away and um I am there's a potent public

53:11 image right here, a mile from this building and that's the Baxter timber um processing plant and that is a tells us what happens when corporate interests their bottom line is more important to them than the community around it. There's subdivisions right across Roosevelt and who's bearing the costs for the cleanup and what are the public health impacts? Thank you very much. >> Santiago followed by your name Kaja Sue. We're gonna stop there. >> Um yeah, my name is Santiago. I'm in ward one. Uh, and I agree with Sue and uh,

53:56 yeah, I am just wanting to voice my support for 2373 and uh, ask that you delay the vote and uh, allow some time for legitimate process. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. >> A TJ AA, >> thank you. I apologize. >> Thank you. My name is Katya Kohler and I um uh live in Cottage Grove. And in 2015, we experienced aerial spray drift and got very involved with trying to um

54:44 stop the practice and um met a lot of other people in the process that also have been affected by the toxins from forestry sprayings. Um and that led me down the path of um getting really involved with uh trying to pass the initiative to ban aerial spraying. We collected 16,000 signatures, spoke with a lot of people over a period of two years and heard a lot of people from our county that want the spring to stop, but unfortunately the uh initiative was deemed um well, we weren't able to put it on the ballot. um because of uh legal reasons. So we

55:31 went about trying to protect our wersheds in this way with the 2373 water bill shed override um water bill. Sorry, I'm not really good at public speaking, but um yeah, it concerns me that uh it seems like the chief commissioners of this bill have not been talked to at all by e webb and I would urge you to speak your concerns and ask them questions about it before voting on it. Um, I am I wanted to read you a section too of a oped that my husband and I and Bobby

56:17 Lindberg who used to work for the DEQ wrote uh about we looked at USGA USGS's uh water studies of the McKenzie in 2012 and um the the report showed many pesticides ides that were found in in the water. Um >> Okay. Can you wrap it up please? >> Okay. Including um 24D, atrizine, glyphosate, sulfetron, methan, emanipir and triclo. So these herbicides are getting in our drinking water. >> Thank you very much.

57:04 >> Hi, my name is Jenny Borman. I live in Cottage Grove and I'm a physician in Eugene and I want to speak mostly to my health concerns about the pesticides in the water ones that Katu just spoke about specifically. We know that they're neurotoxins. They increase the risk of Parkinson's disease and other neurodeenerative diseases. They increase the risk of infertility um immediately. They give respiratory distress, rashes, headaches. They have significant impacts and I understand the concern that this bill might not be strong enough to stop aerial spraying. But I would advocate the slowing down of the process for real consideration and communication, discussion, opening up to the public. I think that your choice on this bill will certainly impact other people's decision. And so it really matters if you vote this down or if you

57:50 don't endorse this. And so I advocate either to be neutral or to delay the vote or to vote positively on this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Last speaker is Dylan Thompson. >> Good evening, Dylan Thompson, Ward One EW Webb customer. I'm here to speak about the watershed bill of rights measure. Um, I just want to say that EW Webb's opposition to the measure rests on the idea that uh existing water laws are sufficient. They're not. Um, history says otherwise. Every major watershed failure in Oregon occurred while the Clean Water Act and state regulations were in place. Those laws regulate how much harm is allowed. This measure exists because uh that permitted harm

58:36 accumulates and it degrades watersheds. It this measure does not replace existing law. It strengthens it. Uh the concern about vague language misunderstands a little bit I think how rights work. Fundamental rights are intentionally broad so they can respond to new threats. The right to clean water is no different. Courts interpret broad rights every day. What this measure establishes is a clear priority. Watershed health is not subordinate to convenience or incremental damage. E Web is not the target of this measure. It is one of its natural beneficiaries. This constrains actors who externalize costs onto watersheds, not not utilities like this one that already invest in protection. For EW, it strengthens your position when defending protective decisions against private or upstream

59:23 pressures. Um, and I think concerns about uh delay in process also need reframing. In watershed management, delay is often responsible stewardship. Once aquifers are contaminated or stream flows collapse, there is no fast fix. Precaution is not inefficiency. It is how water security is maintained. I also think the enforcement burden is overstated. Lane County already enforces environmental and public health standards. Um, there's also a public trust issue. Opposing a watershed's bill of rights signals that Ew Webb's operational flexibility outweighs ecological integrity. I think that reputational risk is far greater than speculative litigation. Um, I urge EB to reconsider opposition and move toward a

1:00:08 neutral or engaged position. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else like sign up testify? If not, then I will close the public input and ask for commissioner comments. Um, we don't get into a dialogue. I'll remind you that agenda item number 10 is um is a 30 minute schedule to discuss this measure uh on the watershed bill of rights. And so I'll go around the room and see everybody wants to respond. Mindy, >> well, thank you everybody for coming. There certainly are a lot of you tonight. Um, I appreciate you coming out and talking and um, we're like Commissioner Brown said, we're going to talk about this later, but um, there's

1:00:54 just a few notes that I have and I just want to say uh, I don't want this to seem like we're either in support or in support of Aerial Spring, but I'm absolutely against aerial spring. But my issue with this ballot measure is the broadness of it. And I wish that in a I wish that there was a way to make it less broad. Um I'm really worried about the risks that it does open up for EW. I know that this wasn't written um because you think there's anything that EW is doing wrong necessarily, but I feel like there are so many unintended consequences that we can't even predict what they

1:01:40 are. And our job here as commissioners is to make sure that the utility is run in a responsible way. And um just the uncertainty in this ballot measure really gives me pause. >> Sonia, to log back. >> Hear just a little bit. >> Barely speak right into the mic. See if that does it. >> She's got Okay. So, I'll go to Tim and then go back to Mindy.

1:02:26 >> Thank you, chair. Um I just uh we had a variety of topics tonight. So, I just want to say thank you for for coming out and spending uh either part or the rest of your Tuesday evening with us. Um depending on how long you stick around. But, uh, I just want to, uh, say thank you and especially want to, um, acknowledge that, uh, this may have been your first time here at EW Webb or it may have been your first time speaking and so I recognize the the nerves around that. So, I I want to acknowledge and and congratulate and celebrate with you as well for for accomplishing that. So, thank you, >> Mr. Barski. >> Thank you. Thanks everybody for coming out and giving us input. Um, as far as the ballot measure, uh, I'll give my feelings of that when it's on on the agenda. Um, uh, as far as the pilot

1:03:12 program at the UFO, um, to me, I see that as what it was represented to me as a commissioner as a pilot program to get data so that we know, uh, if this is a viable path forward in the future. It's not an my understanding it was not an ongoing uh implemented policy or action that this this utility is taking. We're trying to gather data to see if if if and when there is a a power a need for peak power that we have the data to look at where the best place to get that peak power at the lowest amount of carbon that we can. That's

1:03:59 that's the data that I'm looking for out of this pilot program. Uh it's my understanding is like I says we we have not gotten into any contract with the UFO regarding ongoing uh implementation of the gas plant. So data is something that I lean into as a policy maker and a decision maker. And so when I can get data that helps me make responsible decisions. >> I go back to uh Sonia. Are you are you back Sonia? Did you reboot and get voice? >> So, can you hear me? >> Yeah, speak. Yeah, speak up clearly. >> I don't know why it's so dim. Sorry. >> No, it's working. It's working fine now. Thank you. >> Okay, wonderful. Um, well, thank you all

1:04:46 for all the public testimony. I think this is what real democracy looks like. Um, I I often say that people don't come out unless you put something out for them to discuss. And I think in part that the public process has worked. It's given an opportunity for people to come out and share their views. And for that I'm thankful because I think it's it behooves all of us to learn more about the the work that's going on in our community. Um, I will save my comments uh directly around um the watershed um for later, but I was interested potentially and I should have asked this during the agenda check and all that, but I was having mic issues. Um if we could move up the conversation around

1:05:32 the watershed bill of rights so that the people who are in the room could actually hear the discussion. And I think part of the challenge is that um after there's, you know, so much testimony on it, if people have to leave, then they're actually going to miss out on hearing our responses and hearing our our logic around certain things. So, I just wanted to put that out there. Um I also agree on the the pilot project piece. Um you know, many want to delay it. I mean, for me, I I'm a data-driven decision maker and I do support environmental work and I do support work around climate change. I also recognize that we have uh climate uh we have power needs that regardless uh will be purchased by natural gas and

1:06:18 so having more control over that locally is of interest to me. Um there might be other things we could do to mitigate it in working with our local partners. So I'm I am interested in it because I think that it behooves all of us to learn about how we can do better and I see this as a a potential opportunity. um and maybe we learn at the end of it that it's not and that's okay. I I I just think that getting more information is generally um better. So, thank you for the opportunity and for all of the wonderful public testimony today and I'm sorry that I couldn't be there in person. As you might be able to tell, I'm a bit under the weather and did not want to share that with everyone. >> Thanks, Sony. Um, and I'll close it by saying that uh before I go to the

1:07:03 general manager, um, that I really appreciate everybody's testimony. I want to tell Gan, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, we're not even going to discuss the, uh, opt out rates until May. Is that correct? >> So, we have not implemented an opt out rate on and for smart meters. And so, that's some information that needs to be corrected and hopefully staff can follow up with him because you have his contact information and tell him that's not happening yet. >> Right. Um, as as far as the uh UVO pilot, I I agree with what has been said. We need we need data. It's a 60-day deal. And uh you know, we're going to run out of power. Uh we we need it for peaking and uh and people, as much as they don't like gas, um you know, go look at what happened with wind during this cold spell. We had 10 days that wind didn't blow. And if we rely on that even for peaking, let alone general

1:07:48 power, um we got problem. And so, you know, we're going to have power shortages. We got to figure out that solution. And if this gives us a way to do it and rather not have to go out in the market and buy even dirtier power, uh, so be it because we're already at 93 94%. Um, and so we're we're on cusp and to say it's 65% that's it runs 247 365 and we're going to run it at peak times and so in and even in the test unless I'm wrong there. So >> yeah. Um, President Brown, I I think to you know there were a number of comments about transparency with this project. Um, I think one of the things that we're looking to do here, um, we think doing a pilot is prudent. Um, it facilitates a public conversation information that the

1:08:33 board is is requesting and by having the performance, the economic, the environmental data, we can better assess how it fits with the rest of the portfolio. It is not to replace renewables. It is not to replace demand response or conservation or some of these other measures, but it is it is likely that the the issues in the region will place new and more restrictive requirements on e-web as a participant in that grid. And it's very likely that simply by having assessed the data and having an agreement in place that we can avoid other costs and potentially uh other forms uh and of environmental impacts whether we we run that for one

1:09:19 minute or one month or don't run it at all. And so uh the pilot is just that. It is intended to work with the University of Oregon uh to understand the details of that that data both economically, performance-wise, and environmentally. And that's that's the intent of it. Uh at that point, we can have a better conversation about how it fits within our portfolio. And so um that's the intent of it. I think commissioners are correct in their assessment of that and we will talk a little bit about that. Um I believe it's on the docket for next month just resource adequacy in general and some of the issues in the region. >> Okay. And then my final comment on the on the watershed bill of rights. I don't think there's a person in this room I I know that I have had a dedicated to clean water. That's why I'm here. I've

1:10:04 been here 20 years and that was the reason I came here and that's the reason I am here. I' I've done things. I've I've cleaned them up. I've spent my money. I've done everything I can to protect that wershed. And if I thought this was something that was, you know, uh that, you know, I'm flattered that everybody thinks that they they want our input, but why didn't they come to us before this was put on the ballot? And no, nobody came to us. No, we had did no input whatsoever from third parties or anything else and it's on the ballot. We can't change it. And to just assume that the county commissioners are going to add something, I'm not going to give credence to that because I'm not I don't have confidence that that'll happen. So, we'll have that discussion later unless the Commissioner Carlson requested uh that we may consider moving the agenda around. I remind you that we do have

1:10:50 people online and the uh general manager recruitment process that are in Denver and there's a time issue and uh waiting for this that discussion to have and uh and so that's the will of the board. Um I I'm going to respect Commissioner Carlson's request uh to move to move things around and if it's not if it's not something we'll do with the state of our regular agenda. We're going to scoot right through some things. We consent calendar. Then we have the general manager recruitment and that's a 45minute agenda item. Then we have bonding the city of Eugene and then we have the watershed bill of rights. What's the will of the group? Um, if I may. >> Yeah.

1:11:35 >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Um, >> could we um I can amend that to uh move the approval of the consent calendar items and the resolution 2602 and 2603 to a bit later. And then we could go on with the general manager recruitment process and then go to the other so that we can um deal with the the timing issue the difference. >> Can I is everybody okay with that? Just move the consent calendar take less than a minute but we'll just we'll move the consent calendar. So, we're going to move agenda items five, six, and uh and nine >> to um after the break or or after the

1:12:20 general manager recruitment process. >> After the wershed. Yeah. >> Yes. After the watershed bill. >> Okay. >> Everybody okay with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we're going to move on then. The next agenda item is going to be the general manager recruitment. >> So, I will start that conversation real quick. I would say that um you know the we followed a thorough process regarding the selection of a well-qualified candidate for EW web general manager used public sessions determine the overall recruitment process minimum job qualifications for the role as well as the compensation range part of the process was a public job posting on ew webb's website and posting with the recruiting firm hired by e webb fry partners micro of moff fry partners is attending a meeting remotely 18

1:13:05 individuals who expressed interest in this position after conducting ing screening interviews. A recruiting firm submitted eight external and four internal candidates for the board's consideration. The board chose seven candidates from this pool for a short list interviews. For the short list interviewees, the board selected two finalists for a second round interview. At the board's request, Moff Ryan Pruss completed additional research on these two candidates. The board now needs to decide who will be the successful candidate for the general manager position based off the differing skills and experience each candidate has demonstrated through their application materials, interviews, and reference checks. I'd like to open the floor for discussion. And I remind you that we do not refer to gender or anything to keep these as

1:13:50 candidate A and candidate B. Commissioner Barroski. >> Thank you. Um, thank you to staff and our recruiter for helping to helping shape and help us make this decision. I think the process was uh thorough and we had really good candidates all along. I believe that it came down to candidate A and candidate B. And my my opinion is that I'm in favor of candidate A and I think we will be the utility would be served well by this individual uh serving as our next general manager. Uh

1:14:38 excellent qualifications, excellent experience, and like I said, I think it'll be an asset to the utility going forward. >> Commissioner Morris. Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, I want to echo the sentiments from Commissioner Barski. Um, staff did a a great job of of knowing where to uh help support us and knowing where to allow a space for us to um to figure things out. Um, I want to highlight uh Laney in particular who brought forward a list of candidates not only that were well experienced but also from a variety of different sort of experiences as well. Um, and I think uh commissioners had a a a really interesting choice in what kind of

1:15:25 direction that we wanted the our next general manager to go and and this utility to go as well. Um, and I thought that that was that was incredible. I think everyone took it incredibly seriously um and really put a lot of thought and energy and effort into into the process. Um when we got down to uh two candidates, um I think we saw a uh a very clear uh picture. Uh we saw a very clear vision um from from both candidates and I think that we um I I support candidate A as well uh because I think um the vision lines up with our mission and our values and our vision as an

1:16:10 organization. Um, and uh, uh, I'm I'm truly impressed by by not only our process and our um, conversations, our questions, what we brought forward, but also just who came forward with us and and making this decision that uh, Commissioner Brown, you say, I think every single time that this is the most important decision we'll be making. So, um truly it was a a for for me as a first-time commissioner, this is my second year. Um this is my normal is hiring a general manager. Um but I recognize just how how truly a huge privilege this is as well. And so um uh uh it it feels a little weird to talk about hiring a new general manager

1:16:55 for the current one here as well. Um so I want to highlight that. But but well and truly I I think that we had a um an incredible process and an incredible list of candidates and and are moving forward with a um a really great one. Thanks, Commissioner Slush. Um, I too think this was a a really um wonderful process that was full of integrity. And so I appreciate um Dearra from human resources or chief people officer and Laney and my fellow board members because I feel like um we're very thorough. We are very specific in what we're looking for but also open to hearing what our candidates had to say.

1:17:40 Um, in all we interviewed seven candidates and then got down to um, two candidates at the end. And I think that we have a really hard choice to make because they're both wonderful candidates. Um, I think that they both bring um, a lot of skills and um, enthusiasm for the position. And when it came down to it, I think the things that we were looking for um we had to differentiate between maybe who was most tested uh in the field. Um we had to look at how you could balance different opinions, the knowledge of business model markets, how

1:18:26 they organized with wrestled with organizational change, so many different things. And um again there were two very strong qualified candidates but I too um support uh hiring candidate A. >> Thank you. Commissioner Carlson. >> Okay. Can you hear me? >> Can thank you. >> Oh good. Okay. Uh also wanted to thank staff and Laney and the team there. Um, I know others have said it, but it it really was a very robust process. I think that we um I really appreciate the community input that we had, the staff input into the values um that we wanted

1:19:11 out of a general manager, the questions that we um used to get um you know to understand each person's vision, I think were incredibly useful. And I I've just felt so so pleasantly surprised that we had such an amazing group of candidates. Um not that I should be surprised. Rebre is a wonderful place to work and you know we do fantastic uh work in the community. So it it wasn't that. It was just often times in some of this we're we're left with making a decision um you know the best decision among bad decisions and that was very much not what we were faced with and I appreciate

1:19:56 that we took three full days to you know interview on top of all of the other meetings and discussions that we had um to you know figure out what we wanted and who we wanted to be in this place and so I'm very thankful that we ended up with the last two candidates. Um, incredibly qualified and um, and I I want to thank them and then also, you know, all all of the other people who applied. Um, it it it is a a daunting process and, you know, to put put your uh, neck out there, put your, you know, put your work out there and and make a vision for an organization like Eb, it's it's no small

1:20:42 task. It's no small chore. It requires somebody with experience and leadership to take us into the future because we do have many challenges and for me the best candidate was also candidate A. So, thank you all. I appreciate it and um look forward to welcoming a a new general manager. >> Okay. I concur with everything that's been said, including the recommendation. No reason for me to repeat the accolades. I do want to reach out to Laney and say this is the third time I've worked with her and and I couldn't give her firm a higher recommendation. I think it was excellent diverse group of people and process. Um so I'm going to make a motion. I move to authorize EW Webb's chief people officer with support

1:21:27 of general counsel to negotiate a contingent and employment contract with John Haristen on a bill power um in alignment with current market practices and the compensation levels approved by the board on October 7th 2025. The negotiated uh initial employment contract will be subject to review and final board decision at a future board meeting. Is there a second? >> Second >> discussion. All those in favor signify by raising your hand and saying I. >> I. >> Motion passes unanimously. >> Congratulations, Mr. Harrison. >> Frank, you're one step closer to it. >> Yes. Go ahead.

1:22:12 >> Um, so we just made we just made >> we just made a decision to uh put a contract offer out for a new general manager. We just put his name out there. Um he's a very qualified person as of right now. He is the CEO of Bottomville Power Administration. Um and brought a a large uh knowledge of the utility industries and also our community. And so I just wanted to, you know, just put saying John Haristen. Now you got to go Google him and do all that. I just thought I'd throw out there what his current title is and where he'll be coming from uh to join our team

1:22:58 hopefully if we can if we can negotiate a successful contract with him. >> Frank, any comments? >> Well, I have a lot of comments, but I'll I'll I'll keep them short. Um, first of all, I really appreciate the the board's efforts. I know this is a lot of work. It takes a significant investment. Um and this board has certainly owned this decision. Um the most important decision that you make will make I I I believe that uh as for John Haristen um I've known him for a number of years. He is a very high integrity, well-qualified candidate um hopefully general manager uh for EWB and I think um Eb and the

1:23:45 board uh will be uh very happy with that that decision and I think it's an honor for us to have someone at that level with that degree of integration be interested in this position. So, um, very excited about it, not just because it gives me an opportunity to to exit, but, um, really have a lot of respect, uh, for John Haristen. Hey, any other comments before I go on to the next agenda item, which now will be the revised next agenda item is going to be, uh, resolution number 2607, watershed Bill of Rights, Lane County Measure 2373. Uh, Commissioner Barski, would you like to lead us off on that conversation? >> Sure. Um so

1:24:34 this is a ballot measure that is going in front of the voters. Um and the reason that that I felt it was important for us as a board to take a position on this is because it has the potential to affect the utility as a whole. Uh we've heard a lot of people tonight talking about aerial spraying and how this may have an impact or have a way to help mitigate th the impacts from those types of uh industrial uses in our in our county. But the vagueness of the of the ballot measure and the potential unensited consequences

1:25:19 that may arise from it led me to ask staff to uh not weigh in on the the up or down of the ballot measure because they're not allowed to do that, but to look at the ballot measure and and read it and decide are could it or how it may impact the utility and our rateayers. After receiving that, I crafted this resolution, brought it before the board at last month's uh meeting. It was publicly announced that it was going to be put in there. We read it, talked it over, felt that there

1:26:05 might be some language changes that needed to happen to it. I took input on on that and then also took input from our legal counsel as to what was the best way to present it going forward. After uh negoti talks with the legal council, we crafted the resolution that resolution number 2607 that's before us tonight. This in no way uh is taking the ail uh ability of the voters to make a decision on this on this decision. My my feeling on it is I'm looking at EW Webb as a whole and that this vaguity and the uh

1:26:53 uncertainty of it makes me not be in favor of it as an e webb board member. I'll put it for discussion. >> Okay, other comments by other commissioners. Anybody want to chime in? John, thank thank you. Um, I appreciate the discussion that we had earlier. Um, so I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the things I've I've been able to do to review and research the measure after our last meeting and then in subsequent conversations. Um, I've I've been able to talk to the chief petitioners. Um, attended a neighborhood meeting

1:27:38 where this was discussed. I've asked for some additional data and followup from our staff, uh, looking at testing, looking at some of our water wershed protection projects. Um, we just sat through, you know, probably 30 at least 30 minutes. I mean, it was kind of split between a few different issues, but at least 30 minutes of public testimony um on this and um and I'm sorry, my my voice is a little horsearo here, but what I keep coming back to is that, you know, it is written very broadly. Um I'm I'm a volunteer. All of the other commissioners on this board are volunteers. We do have to rely on

1:28:23 experts to make these decisions. The experts that we have at our disposal are the staff and our lawyers who do this watershed protection work all the time. And I, you know, for those of you in the audience who maybe don't know who I am, um, from behind the scenes, I mean, this this is some of my lifelong work in protecting water, in advocating for the environment. Um, so this isn't something that I I take lightly. Um, my my initial gut reaction to this was based around some of the feedback that we have received from staff that it would impinge on much of the watershed work that we do. and the watershed work.

1:29:10 I mean, in 2020, after the holiday farm fires, we voted to put $4 million into the upriver area in the Mackenzie watershed to secure and and protect our watershed. And that that took a rateayer action, but it was worth it because we do this work and it's work that we do and and it's lauded across the state as being innovators. So I don't want you to think that we are against watershed protection. Um the the problem though is that it is written very broadly and I know that they say we'll just ignore it. These other nuisance laws will not um you know lawyers and and judges will throw out the cases as frivolous

1:29:55 lawsuits. And maybe from an environmental perspective they might, but I don't know. And I would I would like to hear more from the campaign around how this has actually played out in other communities. And um like I said, I I met with the chief petitioners. I attended that other forum. I personally would like a little bit more time to get a a little bit more information before I I want to take a vote because again, this is something that is very very near and dear to my heart. But but I would ask that if we delay the vote to next month, which is still plenty of time to give Ew Webb's position um on on how it impacts us, that the the

1:30:42 people that are coming to testify that they're they're bringing the information would talk about how this law protects our watershed projects. I want to know how it protects our watershed projects. I want to know how it protects us from being in these other lawsuits. And I know they've kind of waved it off and said that, you know, the Lane County Commissioners will um will will step in, but I I I don't I don't understand that process. I don't I don't know that I trust that. And so I would like more information about that and and some history there. Um, and like I said, I it it may or may not change my ultimate decision, but I am open to a

1:31:29 public process. And part of this is allowing people to come and testify and to email us. And I have received tens and tens of messages over the last couple of days, both in support and against um the the measure itself. So, I personally would like to um ask the commissioners to to give me a little bit more time. Um and if that's not your your brothers this evening, I understand. Um I may abstain. Um and and that's fine. I I just would like a little bit more time if you would be willing. So, >> can I before I go to the next input, could I ask you a clarifying question for process >> because I'm I'm looking I'm learning our agendas >> and I'm I want to know how that would

1:32:15 work. How would if somebody brought more information to the table? The ballot measures already we can't change it. We can't alter it or do anything else. But if somebody brought more information to the table, how would we process that as a board and with with input and back and forth? because um I don't see where it gets on the agenda where we have a discussion where we get input because we're we're getting we're getting some material and then we have to respond to it and then we're into April and and and our agendas are pretty full and uh and this is on the ballot in May. So I just wondered about process how this would work in your eyes if we if we delayed and and asked for more information. >> I mean my in in my opinion I would hope that they they email me. I I'm more than

1:33:01 willing to look at that. I'd like the time to actually talk more with our lawyers about it and I'd like some additional history about how it plays out. That doesn't have to happen in the public meeting necessarily, although we would have to have another time in the March agenda, which should be more than enough time to to be able to have the conversation and vote on it. Um, we could limit the public testimony on that side and just, you know, I could um instead hold some other meetings with people individually. All right. But I just want to make sure we comply with open meetings law and have with three people or you know more than people debating and and discussing uh things like that. So I I understand what your request is. Thank you. >> Can I also say one one last thing? >> Sure. >> I

1:33:46 >> um the details do matter and again for me it's I want them to be able to give us the the specifics because we keep hearing pesticides are bad. Yes, I I don't disagree with that. Pesticides are bad. We want less of them. We have I I've looked at the testing over the last few years that we do and it I I'm not saying that there's pesticide, but that's in our watershed, right? Um but the again the details matter and what their argument is is that pesticides are bad. We we just we should vote against all pesticides. I I still don't understand what how this achieves that. In in part, it's like saying,

1:34:32 "Well, this supports puppies. We all love puppies. How could you be against puppies?" Like, well, I'm not against puppies, but maybe if we had 100,000 puppies dropped into the town and all the other, you know, consequences that go with that. I'm worried about the consequences and and I I want to encourage them to help me understand how these consequences are mitigated. And if they can't, I'm not going to change my mind, but I do want to provide them with the opportunity to give me some other input. So, thank you commissioners for entertaining the idea. >> All right. Okay. Um I'm going to hear from everybody before we take up that question. So, Commissioner Morris, >> thank you, Chair. Um,

1:35:19 uh, I have an idea for a new ordinance and it's, uh, Commissioner Carlson's puppy idea. So, we can maybe talk about that next meeting, but um, yeah, I, uh, I want to take an opportunity to say thank you for everyone who has come out to speak, uh, in favor of this in person. We also received a lot of messages both in favor and opposition um, especially over the last few days. I think I got one uh about 2 minutes before I pulled into the parking lot. So, I really truly like thank you for speaking out and and having your voice heard. Um I there are unfamiliar faces and and names that are there and and um I think we even heard that this is someone's first time tonight in in being here. So truly hearing from the community is is incredibly important. Um

1:36:07 from my perspective this measure is incomplete. Uh it is extremely broad. Does not allow for lines or barriers of uh what is a pollutant? Where is pollutants? Uh who is responsible for pollutants. Um, I hear very loudly that um the lawsuits that that there may be potential lawsuits that uh are frivolous, are minor, are um you know, something to not even consider. Uh I'm not as confident as the petitioners that um these lawsuits won't come forward,

1:36:54 won't cause constrnation, won't gum up the legal system, and ultimately won't harm e webb. And that's really truly what we're talking about tonight. I think um we heard some testimony about why is e webb even weighing in on this? And it is and will affect our uh utility and our programs and our rates because if there are additional if this um measure passes and survives the legal challenge which is likely to happen um then there is a potential for significant more legal responsibility from EW's perspective which would ultimately mean higher rates for our customers. And that's just not a gamble

1:37:40 that I am comfortable making. Um the work of the watersheds that EW Webb does and especially this is my first as I mentioned this is my uh first year second year as a commissioner. Um I'm truly blown away by how much e webb does in water testing and making sure that we're paying very close attention to the wersheds. Um, and I think it's incredible and I recognize the the intent and goal from the petitioners of wanting to codify that work and wanting to set that as the standard. Um, I don't think this measure does that. Um, and I just don't think a legal freeforall is the appropriate response for

1:38:26 protecting our customers, protecting our rates, and protecting our community. And so, um, everything that has been spoken tonight is 100% in my values. I think that we need to aggressively hold polluters responsible for their actions and I think that we need to do so with intent and intention. The law is set up to be precise. This is a very blunt tool and I don't think it will accomplish what is being sought to accomplish. So regardless of what happens with this particular resolution, regardless of what happens to the measure as a whole come May, um I truly hope that we can come together to talk about how we can hold the polluters, the main polluters

1:39:12 accountable um for their terrible, terrible actions and for harming our community. Um I'm just not confident that this measure does that. Um, I uh hear Commissioner Carlson's call for a delay to learn more information. I if that's the will of the board, I would be comfortable for that. I also am just unsure if there is anything else um to learn. I've had a a great opportunity to speak with many people both in favor and opposition about about this and and I feel confident in making a decision tonight. I also feel confident in in delaying that uh um no more than a month to March. So, Mr. Schllo, thank you. >> Yeah. Um well, earlier I shared my

1:40:00 opinion, but what I really want to just talk about is um we've heard from people here tonight that this process hasn't been transparent or it hasn't been a public forum. And um in terms of the process, there is an ordinance or a ballot measure that was put out and we investigated it and then are talking about having an opinion on it. And so I don't know. I guess I don't totally understand what's not transparent about that. But I do think that it is important for people to feel like we are transparent and having a public process. And if delaying this one month so that um Sonia can get more answers that she wants or that the petitioners can supply

1:40:47 more information, I think that that to me sounds reasonable. I don't know whether it will change opinions or not, but it seems like there's no there's no harm in just waiting until March to vote on it and giving people an opportunity to share what they want. Okay, now it's my turn. So, um I I agree with the intent of what they're trying to do. I agree with the observation that it's too vague. I mean, you talk about people that uh can file these lawsuits. We're, you know, we're getting sued right now for $1.2 billion or something I think that shouldn't have been filed just based on my knowledge of of facts. And can I disclose publicly how much we spent defending that?

1:41:34 >> Okay. So, It's uh it's millions and I just say it's a lot of money and it's a lot of a lot of hard money and uh for a lawsuit that I think you know in my personal opinion u but anyhow uh anybody can sue anybody for anything and that they can do it with or without this ordinance and I just don't want to encourage it to happen and I agree that you know I I'll look at I'll just look at Malterville we're going to put millions and millions of dollars back into that facility to get it re-energized and we divert twothirds of the floor of the McKenzie. And if you take 3500 CFS and you you divert all but a thousand, somebody can make the allegation that we're we're affecting the fish and shut it down or or sue to shut it down. And if they do that, we lose millions of dollars. And

1:42:19 we've got we still have the the unamortised debt of of fixing that thing and and relicensing it. And so that's just one example. I mean, there's so many examples of I mean Quartz Creek when people don't like what we did at Quartz Creek or Pinrock Reach or Deer Creek. um all the inwater uh activities that we're doing up there to create salmon habitat. So, um it's unfortunate that we didn't get involved in this conversation early on, but uh they chose not to include us. And so, uh I I personally don't see a benefit in delaying it because any more information isn't going to change my opinion. So, but I'll I'll I'll call the question now because Commissioner Carlson has asked that we delay this. So it if there's going to be a motion, this

1:43:04 is an action item and so there there's going to be a motion to adopt this and we you somebody can move it and second and then discussion. You can you can delay it or you can delay it to date certain. There's a lot of different protocols we can use right now accomplishing what's on the table. So it's the will of the group. Go ahead. Before I do that, in my prologue to this, I explained how we got here. I didn't really get an opportunity to express my opinion on on the resolution before us. Um, for me, a lot of what the other commissioners have said, I I agree with. Um,

1:43:49 I've listened listened to the chief petitioners. I've listened to their arguments, read their emails, and their to me their main focus is aerial spray, and I believe that I'm I'm with them. I think there needs to be more research and more uh perhaps more regulatory uh things on aerial spraying. The intent is great. The implementation to me is not the correct way about getting it. One of the things that was was put out was that if there are lawsuits that somebody decides to bring against Eb for any particular reason that those can be handled in the courts and

1:44:35 they can or or at the Lane County uh Board of Commission and they can take care of those things. One of the things that that does is delays. So if we have a perfectly legitimate pro uh process for something that is going to be done in the in the watershed and we know that the courts are going to do it, it may take a year to do that. Well, a year these days in any type of things add can on the scale of the projects that we're doing can add t millions even tens of millions of dollars to a project every time you delay it for a year. We've seen that with our second source water treatment plant. The the costs have just been escalating. Every time we delay a

1:45:21 vote, it goes up another $10 million. So, those are the kind of impacts that I'm looking at. Whether it's a frivolous lawsuit or not, it has to be defended and it takes time and and those are some of the concerns that I have as far as imple implic implications, not intent. So, I am I'm in favor of moving this forward tonight. I understand the idea to get more information. It's just how does how as commissioners I I hope we can look at this and say how is this affecting e web? Not whether or not we're in favor or opposed personally to this ballot measure or the intent of this ballot measure, but how does the

1:46:08 ballot measure as written affect EW Webb as a whole and our rateayers. Make your decision with that lens. I would hope >> so. This is an action item and uh like I say, we've Go ahead, Sonia. >> I wanted to make a motion. >> Go ahead. Okay. Um, I'd like to move that we delay the uh vote to the March uh regular board meeting. >> Okay. To date case been moved and second delayed to the March meeting. So >> tableabling till date servant is not debatable. And so I'll call a question. Um >> well she didn't she didn't move to table it. She moved to move to

1:46:54 >> delay it >> to delay it. >> Yeah. >> I'm just Well, there's no You just >> You just ended discussion. She made a motion that I fel I feel is worth discussing. >> Okay. >> So, if you're if you're labeling it as a a motion to table, then you're procedurally correct. But I didn't hear it as a motion to table. Do you have a second? >> Yes, Tim seconded. So, I'll call the discussion. You know, we our rules say we go by Robert's rules unless we don't go by Robert's rules. And so, we can we can >> um >> well, you know, you know, we got to be transparent about this. So, and we want to make sure we get the best outcome of our decision deliberation. So, okay,

1:47:40 we're going to have deliberation. So, it's been moved and seconded that we delay this uh discussion of this um resolution until the March meeting. Okay. Anybody want to discuss that or call a question? >> John. >> Yeah. I I would like to discuss I would just like to know one kind of like Commissioner Brown said, what is the process for this delaying? Um what is the process to gain more information? uh is that just Sonia gets wants to get more information and so they'll reach out to Sonia. What about me? The chief petitioners have not reached out to me. They've reached out to every other board member but me and and I believe that's because I was charged with helping to craft the

1:48:27 resolution because one of the board members had to. Um again, I want to know what the process is. what information, how is the information that we're going to be getting dispersed? Um, and then what is the next process? Is it we we listen to 30 other people at the next meeting? And then just if if the if the maker of the motion could speak to that, that would help me make my decision. >> Tony, would you like to respond? I mean, I can't I'm I'm not going to dictate how other commissioners get information during this time and whether or not they take it. I personally said that I wanted to talk to our lawyers. I wanted to get some history on how these kinds of bills hap um have played out elsewhere and

1:49:13 that I encourage those who h have put this forward to tell me specifically how this measure protects our work and if it doesn't how what are our repercussions because I I I still don't understand that they said that we don't have this and and I I want to give them the opportunity and the benefit of the doubt. Um, I don't want to hear more about, you know, aerial spraying. I'm That's not where where I need convincing on where I need convincing on. And this is what they're asking for additional time. And and they didn't get the memo until last Wednesday or Thursday. And so I want to provide them with time to say that we're protected in X, Y, and Z way. And I want our lawyers who do utility type work to

1:50:00 help give me an understanding on yes, this this actually has an impact or or no, it doesn't. And so I just would like to have that conversation. Um the way the rest of you get information or don't take that information is completely up to you. What my hope would be is during the March meeting, we have a limited amount of time for public testimony as we normally do and we can adhere to that. And if any of the folks from the the public want to come, they send us their uh their feedback in between. But again, I want it to be very strictly targeted at the issues that we have around this measure. It's very broad. It's going to stop our watershed work. They haven't even looked at what work on the watershed we've done. So, I want

1:50:45 them to go and look at our wershed work and tell me how they how how it doesn't impact it because that for me is the main point. And when I make this vote, I'm wearing my e-web hat. It is I want rateayers to understand what this measure does to our to our rateayers. And so I I just want to be very very clear on it. And I I will say I'm sorry, but you know, we had three days that I had to take off work this last month to to go through the general manager hiring process. And that limited my ability to do the due diligence on this that I would have liked. You know, as a volunteer, it's it's been a lot of work to hire the general manager. And that was absolutely critical and we had to focus on that. We have a tiny little bit more time that we could get the rest of it. And it may not change my mind either, but I want to know because when

1:51:31 I look at these people who are my they're my people, I I I work to protect the watershed. I work to protect energy efficiency and climate change. I want to be able to look them in the eye and feel incredibly comfortable with the decision I'm making. And I just I currently don't feel that way. But the the way in which you all take that information is up to you. >> Sonia, if I may, um I think we're all entitled to the same privilege that you're asking for. And so if you have the ability to request information and specifics, all of us do. And I don't want to do this in a vacuum or one person gets one silo of information and the other people aren't. I think we need to be collectively informed about this because this is not your decision, it's our decision. And so hopefully we're all going to get that. So if there's, you

1:52:16 know, I want to engage staff because we have time to do this and and and effectively do it because if we go out and we all have our questions and we submit our questions, we get them responded to and then how do we process that that that you know and because this isn't going to stop and uh and you know, I I'm I'm still a little bit saying, okay, now it's all a big a big rush, but you know, this process took months and we were never involved in never ca. Nobody came to us and said, "We want your input. This is really affecting you and everything else." Now all of a sudden it's affecting us and and now all of a sudden we're important. We haven't been important until we decided to oppose it and now all of a sudden everybody wants our opinion. Nobody wanted our opinion until then. So

1:53:01 I'm a little bit saying, okay, uh what's going on here? So if you're going to have that privilege to have all that questions, I think the rest of us get that, too. So and I don't know what that venue is. Frank, if you want to chime in and let us see if you can unravel this because we got about a minute and a half. >> Um, President Brown, um, I think the, um, one of the things that I would have to look into, um, is what the most appropriate legal counsel would be on this. It's it's obviously a specialized council. It's, uh, would not be under the normal U boardappointed um, council, just general counsel. I think most of the the questions um that that you're going to pose around the impacts of what

1:53:48 you have termed as broad or vague would be around the legal questions. And so um that would be more of an issue of of legal costs than it would be of staff time I I believe at that point. So, um, now the the venue itself, I would have to look into which, um, public, um, meetings laws apply to if you wanted to have an executive session. Um, um, obviously the the board cannot form a quorum, um, without um, public notice and and public availability. So, those are just things I would have to look into, President Brown. But probably the the most critical piece would be which of the councils that we work with would be most appropriate to answer the board

1:54:34 questions. Beyond that, we we do as staff could supply the board with with um responses to questions. It would be best to pose the to pose those to staff in writing so that we could have a record of the response. >> Okay. Well, there's a motion and a second on there. I know we do have a lot of time on the March agenda, so I'll call a question. All those in favor of delaying discussion on uh um the watershed bill of rights resolution number 2607. We'll delay it till March meeting, signify by saying I and raising your hand. >> I opposed. Motion passes three to two.

1:55:19 >> You can put me in the eye. You can put me in the eye. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next agenda items. Consent calendar number eight. Sorry. >> I move to I move to uh accept consent calendar A. >> Second. >> Sonia. I'm just doing this because it's more efficient. Usually, usually the vice president makes those those motions, but with the delay. >> Okay, great. >> Okay. Any Frank, you a comment? >> Yeah, just a comment. Um clarification on on your motion, Barovski, you said accept. Do you mean approve

1:56:05 >> consent calendar A? Yeah. Okay. >> Any other discussion? All those in favor of stopping consent calendar A signify by saying I. >> I carries unanimously. Approval of consent calendar B. Is there a motion? >> I move to accept calendar B or >> approve. >> Approved consent calendar. >> Is there a second? >> Second by Morris. In discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> Any opposed? >> unanimously. Okay. The next is going to be the resolution 2602 and 2603 requesting city authorization for issuance of electric and water bonds. Deborah Ar. Hey, princess.

1:56:58 >> Is it in peace? >> Like a sense of whatever. >> You're up. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, President Brown and commissioners. Uh, for the record, I'm Deborah Hart, the assistant general manager, as well as the CFO and the treasurer. I'm here this evening with Aaron Balmer, financial services manager, to talk about issuing electric and water bonds in 2026. We have a brief presentation and then we'll answer questions before asking you uh your for your approval to go to the city council. So with that, Aaron. >> Thank you, Deborah. Uh good evening,

1:57:44 commissioners. Again, Aaron Balmer, financial services manager. Uh I want to start by noting uh that borrowing is a piece of what we do to manage rate affordability. Uh it makes sense when used to support significant capital projects and we are strategic in our approach to debt financing and use proceeds to fund projects with very long economic lives. This allows for the cost of construction to be spread over the life of the bonds and repaid by those customers receiving the benefit from the systems new assets. In terms of the issuance process, this slide highlights the steps with the board's touch points in bold. EW commissioners are requested to approve resolutions bookending the process. So

1:58:30 by resolution, the e webb board initiates and ultimately directs management to issue bonds. With e webb as an administrative unit of the city, city council authorization is needed and we are slated on city council's agenda for February 23rd. Should the board initiate the process this evening, the current financing calendar has us returning to the to the e webb board in May with a supplemental resolution, which is final authorization for management to complete the issuance and sale of e webb bonds. For tonight, we are at step one, requesting you for permission to go to city council for authorization.

1:59:17 So, why do we need to borrow? The short answer is capital projects. Ew's approach to financing capital investments uses a combination of funding sources. The two biggest being current rate revenues and debt financing. This borrowing would provide $113 million in funding for electric projects such as Carmen Smith and Walterville, as well as various substation and transmission line upgrades. And for the water utility, it would provide $58 million to support the College Hill reservoir rebuild, water mane replacements, Burlesen expansion project, and design work for the WAMIT treatment plant. These respective borrowing amounts are in line with long-term financial plan assumptions as

2:00:02 provided to the board last fall. And so this bond issuance is a step in execution of those plans. Of note, uh, for the water utility resolution in your materials, the requested authorization amount is significantly higher than the $58 million noted here, this accounts for potential funding toward construction of the WAMIT treatment plant. Should design prove viable and pursuit of the con of construction be approved by the board in coming months. Authorization at this time positions the project to efficiently move forward if and when the board is ready. This authorization prepares the future for the financing should the book board decide we are to do the work.

2:00:52 When borrowing money, uh, it is good to assess the impact to cash flows. So, what would our debt service look like? This graph shows a draft of annual debt service over the next 30 years. Color segments in the columns note the existing debt along with refunding amounts as well as impacts to debt service levels from the new money and the refunding savings opportunity for the electric system. The new issuance adds $7.3 million per year to our debt service obligation. And this is represented by the blue segments in the column chart that show that and show up beginning next year. The orange segments indicate where current market conditions present an

2:01:37 opportunity for the electric utility to refund previously issued bonds. This is to achieve overall debt service savings of approximately $3 million. The red notation on the bar chart shows the potential debt service savings from refunding, which would be a reduction to our existing annual debt service payment for the water utility. What would our debt service look like there? The new issuance adds $3.7 million per year to the annual debt service obligation. Again, this is represented by the blue segments in the column chart. As with the electric system, the orange segments indicate where current market conditions present an opportunity for the water

2:02:23 utility to refund previously issued bonds. And this again achieves overall debt service savings of approximately $900,000. Again, not noted in red is the uh potential debt service savings by refunding. for the refundings uh for both utilities. I want to note that they are dependent on market conditions and market movements. Uh we will seek to refund all or a portion of the ele eligible amounts to optimize the refunding savings. So to wrap things up, borrowing is part of what we do to manage rate affordability and is a prudent financial step when used to strategically support significant capital projects. So, we are

2:03:09 seeking new money for capital investments and refinancings to improve existing debt service obligations and management recommends approval of resolution 2602 and 2603 to continue the process of bond issuance with the city. And with that, turn it back to you, President Brown for discussion. >> Okay, I'll open up the floor to any comments. Um, I don't see Sonia on the screen anymore, but I'll I'll just start on the table here. Um, Commissioner Sashber, any comments, questions? >> Okay, Commissioner Morris. >> Um, no. I, uh, this was clear and I have no questions. So, thank you, >> Antonio. >> Yep. Nothing for me. Great. >> John B, I know you got a question. You

2:03:56 can go later down. >> Okay. Um, so on water, we're as we're going to go to the city and say, can we bond this much for capital projects? The amount we're asking them for is $218 million in bonding capacity. Correct. >> Correct. >> And is that where you got the the uh the full 218? Was that where the $3.7 million in uh that service came from or was it the $ 58 million that raise that 3.7 million per year? >> 58. >> Okay. So, what is the what is the amount per debt service if we pull the full 218 million? And and why didn't you show

2:04:43 that? didn't show that because uh the 218 million the the difference there is 160 million. Right. Right. That's our placeholder amount for planning purposes with the uh Wamit treatment plant. If that project moves forward, uh it's anticipated that we'll do multiple issuances throughout the course of that uh project's build. And so the the incremental ads to that didn't have modeled this evening. Uh that is part of the information that we'll look to bring back as the board has more discussion on the uh viability of that project in coming months. So, the reason I'm asking that is is if

2:05:29 I'm and I'm comfortable with with us moving forward with it as an EW commissioner, but we're asking the city council to approve $218 million. They don't have that information. Well, or they will have some of that information, but we're asking them to say, "Hey, give give us the ability to bond $218 million using you as my co-signer," basically, right? That's kind of what why we're asking them to do it. It's it's in the No. Well, okay. I mean, they don't aren't cosign anyways. Okay. So, that that's that. Um, on the electric side, we're at 113 million plus

2:06:16 another 79 million for refi. >> The refunding is not another, it's just part of the existing debt. So, the 79 million uh par amount is represented by the orange. So, that's in our debt already and refunding it would reduce the interest rate that we pay. >> So, we don't have to is reissue bonds. So the we're only asking for 113 from them. >> New money. >> 113 new money. The 79 is the refinancing. >> Okay. So the 79 wouldn't add any more to the 7.3 million per year. >> Okay. And the 113 is the all-in number then. Not not there's not projects that are built in there that kind of like the

2:07:01 second source one that the projects that you identified to get to 113 were identified and and uh the funds figured out. >> They're projects that exist in the latest capital plan. A capital plan that that you all would have seen last summer. >> Okay. So then I guess the the last question and this will probably be to the general manager is on the water side on the 218 why are we asking for 218 now and if we one we're not going to issue it until we that decision is made we can go back to the council at at at any time and ask them for bonding capacity. Why are we a asking for phantom bonding at capacity

2:07:46 when we haven't even decided we need it and there's no downside to going back at a later date? >> We talked about that earlier. You want to answer that? >> We did. >> Well, I I'll start. Uh so um a piece of it is efficiency and this is a process that uh we used for uh borrowings for Carmen. Uh it's been years, but it is a process that we've used before. If the board decides uh to proceed with uh with building a second treatment plant, this this enables us to get to market faster to go back to the city council. We schedule this meeting and prepare. Then we schedule time to be on the city

2:08:31 agenda and then we're subject to a 60-day notice. So four months uh that it slows us down. In addition um it provides some transparency too to our ratings agencies when uh when we meet with them that will be their signal that we have uh the potential for a large capital project. They're not as um fond of being surprised. So coming back six months later and asking for a new rating uh for a project that was slated for discussion. Um I don't want to say that it's problematic, but it does give us an

2:09:16 opportunity to be transparent. >> I I was just going to add to that and absolutely right. Um the the ratings agencies want to give you their ratings based on a full and complete picture of the bonding requirements. So then that leads me to the follow-up question of that is if we go and get authorization for $218 million, we've got to put that $28 million on our debt service ratio. Correct. No, >> not until the we actually pursue the bonds. This is the authorization by the when we actually go and issue the sale of the bonds, that's when it hits your your debt service coverage. >> But does you're talking about the rating agencies? rating agencies are going to look at that whether or not we've we've

2:10:01 issued it or not. They're going to look at it and say, "You've got $218 million on your water side and they're going to look at it whether we trigger it now or not." Correct. >> They'll ask us questions, I expect, about what uh how we intend to fund that. Okay. >> And we'll direct them honestly and transparently to upcoming board meetings. So the information may not be available because you will not have made that decision. Uh but it does not count against our debt service until we actually borrow money. >> So I'm going to ask you and and you can't you can't be a crystal ball here. I think John left his crystal ball in there, but do you think that by issuing

2:10:46 this extra $160 million of water uh capacity bonding will have a negative impact on our on our bond rating? >> Not I do not believe that asking for the authorization in advance is detrimental relative to going back next six months from now. I actually think that it's beneficial for us to speak transparently about what's on uh you all's agenda uh to discuss. >> Great. Thank you for answering those questions. I I just uh that will help me because I think there may be some city councilors that may reach out and say,

2:11:32 "What what is this that you're asking me to do?" And now I have the clear a clearer picture. So, I appreciate the the information that you gave me, the fact that you don't feel that it will have a negative impact on our on either our bond rating or on our ability to complete these projects in the first in the in the future. So, thank you very much. >> Just a clarifying question, you you've already assumed debt service and and a bond issuance. So, what's the interest rate on bonds that you're assuming we're going to get? We haven't gone to market yet, but the preliminary estimates it'll be right around four and a half%. And since >> and that's what the debt service has calculated on the Okay. And and rate effects. So So we issue those bonds when? What month?

2:12:18 >> June. >> This June. So we borrow that money. We have an additional $3 million a year for water for debt service. What does that do to rates? if we have another $ three and a half million dollars to serve debt >> or for water. Well, either both or either. Yeah. >> Uh this is my back pocket info. So, um >> in isolation >> that's $4.50 of upward pressure. There are other steps in the planning process that we can use to mitigate that. But in isolation, that move adds $4 >> 450 to water. What's it do to electric? For electric, >> it is $8 per month. >> The average water bill is 30 bucks.

2:13:05 >> 40 40. >> So yeah, I'm just looking at the percentage of of rate increase just for this debt issuance. So just just so we can keep that in our mind, it's coming up and and it's coming up this year. So we're going to have upward pressure on rates again. So just for this issue, that's thank to your It is. It's baked in. That's >> You've already got it baked in with that interest rate. >> We have We have baked in borrowing at that interest rate. >> Yeah. Thank you. All right. Well, any other questions? Sonia, >> have one. Quite a clarification. I thought I just heard um him say that the interest rates were 4 a.5%. the premeating question that I sent because I was shocked that we could sell uh bonds at a lower rate than we had for

2:13:52 any of the earlier years. Um said something about two and a half to three% here. Let me sorry I only have the one screen here but >> yes Commissioner Carlson your question was on the bonds that we were refunding uh refinancing and so for those bonds for those bonds uh because the maturities are uh shorter in duration. The interest rates are going to be lower than when we look at the entirety of the issuance because we're issuing over a 30-year term. uh the interest rate when you average that out over the entirety of the issuance is closer to the 4 and a.5% average. >> Okay. So, real quick, let me uh reiterate what I think happened here.

2:14:37 So, we're refunding those bonds, but we're not purchasing others to replace that funding. Is that correct? because I thought in the past when we've done this kind of debt refinancing, it's usually because there's some amount of debt we hold and there's uh new debt that we can get that has a lower interest rate and that's how we save it. But that would be what we would be doing. We would be issuing new bonds that would pay off old bonds at higher interest rates. those have um uh shorter maturities which is why the interest rate is more favorable in our refundings. So within each bond series uh there are different maturities and so there's an

2:15:23 overall average interest rate but there's no single interest rate uh that we pay. >> Okay, got it. So the section that we're refunding has the lower interest rate that is listed on the premeating questions. The other debt that we're that we're purchasing because it has longer time that has a higher interest rate and that's the four 4 and a.5% that he mentioned. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. >> Okay. We got this is an action item and I would entertain a motion to adopt resolution 2602 as a separate motion and then 2603 following it. Move to adopt 2602. >> Second. >> All those in favor signifies by saying I. >> I.

2:16:08 >> Unanimously. >> I move to approve resolution 2603. >> All those in favor? I passes unanimously. Break time. 10 minutes. We'll rejourn at 8:10. Thank you.

2:25:29 evening. >> Yes, President Brown, Commissioners. Uh, good evening. Uh, for the audio record, Frank Lawson, general manager. Um, this is part of an annual process that, uh, the board uh has agreed to to take on to review. um the policies that um are the board's responsibility and um on on an annual basis. And so um in in total there's Oops, wait a minute. >> This was there aren't any slides for this. >> Oh, okay. Um, in in general, uh, I want to say there are 44 different policies

2:26:15 that the the board is responsible for. And so, um, staff has put forth a number of in the background material, a number of proposed um, recommendations for your consideration. And so, this is, uh, a conversation that the board can have to go through those. So, um, be happy to entertain any questions about those, uh, those policy revisions. Any questions from anybody on the board about, uh, what's proposed for the changes? John >> on the external commissioner communications. I just had a a question. So any commun and the

2:27:01 revision says any communications by a commissioner to the media which exposes an individual's viewpoint on an e-web related subject matter should be represented as the commissioner's own viewpoint. Totally understand that. Made clear that it does not represent the position of the board and should be shared with fellow commissioners and the general manager well in advance typically 48 hours of expected publication. My question on that is the logistics of that. So a reporter comes to me and asks me a question and I respond and say my opinion is this. How do I have a way of knowing

2:27:46 40 to get you guys that that information 48 hours before? I have no idea when his publication deadline is. I'm just looking I I love the idea of it. I want to be made aware of if something's going out into the media and myself as a as an e webb board member even though I'm speaking on my own behalf John there there's things that are drawn you know inferences that are drawn that I this is my position on whatever and my position might represent the board and e webb as a whole so I'm just I I appreciate wanting to be aware of those types of things. I just don't know the logistics on this and how that would play out.

2:28:32 >> Yeah, Pres President Bowski, I went back in time just for a second there. Um, sorry, President Brown. Um, there there were a couple considerations in our recommendation here. One of them, um, this does not refer to external communications that you would have with constituents or interested parties. This was specifically related to um interactions that you would have with media. Um also uh we wanted to make sure it was clear that it would had to do with some kind of e webb issue or agenda item or position that related to e webb work. And so we wanted to make sure that that was clarified. The advanced notice um you're you're absolutely correct. We kind of said typically for which in many cases with media you don't exactly know.

2:29:17 I think that um many of these policies, if you look at their history, they go back to the early 2000s where a this for example is a potential u courtesy to your fellow commissioners. Um it's probably based on um public meetings laws would be best to route that through the general manager's office that hey, I had this opportunity to interact with media on this subject. I expressed my view and then um we could inform the other commissioners. The 48 hours was a I mean that could be stricken. It could just be in advance when possible. Um you know something to that effect. We

2:30:04 we also recognize that there are times when media is a bit hard to predict, but this was really designed to be a court a courtesy to fellow commissioners and on subject matter that was relevant to EW expressing an individual view and also um on something that was pertaining to um to your your personal perspective. >> Other questions or comments? Uh yeah, just just to be clear, are you are you proposing that that you think the language is okay with the exception of the 48 hours which was typical or whether just in advance is appropriate? I I just would like to know how what the procedure would be to implement this. So

2:30:50 I I would love just like a real world example. So So the New York Times calls me. I'm not not going to use the local pacer. The New York Times calls and says, "I I see that you're thinking about taking out a dam on the McKenzie River. Can you tell me more about that?" And I say, "Give them, yes, we're looking at taking out a dam, blah blah blah blah blah blah." So now, I don't know how they're going to use that. I go, I'm speaking on my on behalf of myself. the board has has said we're going to take out a dam. This is my understanding of it as my views.

2:31:37 I don't know how that reporter is going to take that stuff. So, I have to then digest what I had said to the reporter, send it to you, you disperse it to the rest of the board. Again, I'm just I tell me how how I need to implement this policy. I would I would say described as exactly what you just described. Okay. If if you make a comment to media on something related to e webb matters that you would say I I've been approached by media. I I made this statement. I made it clear that it was my own perspective. Now if if it's a general view of the board there are there are aspects of the

2:32:23 policy with which would um provide direction in that case but if if you are um expressing your own opinion then you would route it to the general manager's office just like you described and we would make sure if if if you don't do that and you just let's say emailed everybody all the other board members there could be a serial meeting that takes place If someone responds, then it becomes not information. It becomes deliberation and that that's where it can become dangerous and probably safer to route it through the general manager's office. >> Great. And I I'm in favor of the policy. I just wasn't sure of the logistics of how it would work. So, >> I think the second part of this um describes that a little bit better and we we will work within the public

2:33:09 meetings laws to make sure that that's um appropriate. >> Great. Thank you for the clarifications. And and then I guess I would lean into my other board members to see if you you feel that the 48 hour rule is the appropriate time frame. >> I mean I am. Um I I it did start making me think about some of the other things that I do that we collaborate with e webb on or um e webb does outreach on in my um kind of work hat and it's not you know really an e webb matter necessarily although we collaborate I'm you know I

2:33:54 do TV interviews all the time for my work and I do wonder if this would trigger some notification process around that. um it's not really a position on any web matter, but it's you know in relation to a collaboration on any web matter. So I'm okay with 408 hours notice. I think the intent is really if there's a differing viewpoint or a negative viewpoint that may you know cause um some of us to I mean this is supposed to be a trust build building measure. If there's something that's different than what we we otherwise might say or it's um there's something that's more controversial, I think that's when it

2:34:39 gets triggered a little bit more. But it is broad. So >> we could also add commissioners when possible to the end of I mean we we cannot control media's time frame but as a guideline that would be u probably appropriate to add >> any >> well as it's written it just says typically 48 hours so it doesn't say it has to be 48 hours so to me it doesn't really matter and this seems to be um just really relating to when there's kind of a hot topic or something that either we haven't voted on or haven't discussed and somebody has a different opinion and

2:35:24 the media goes to them. I think that it is a nice courtesy to let fellow commissioners know like hey I'm commenting on this going through the general manager but just just heads up this is coming out but um just want to be clear this isn't saying like can't say anything or you can't share your your opinion it's just a way for an individual commissioner to share their opinion as an individual and then giving everybody a heads up >> I think that was the original intent commissioner if you look back through the entire history of this. I think it was for exactly that purposes that purpose and it it has evolved a little bit and we wanted to clarify it just just a little bit um as well. Um it was pretty it was actually too broad before.

2:36:10 It was almost like if you went and talked to anybody about anything that was probably oh I I have to make sure it's it's me. We we narrowed it in a little bit tighter in that and um >> then John. >> Yeah. Thank you, chair. Um, two comments. Um, the way that I'm reading expected publication and that particular word publication is what I'm hearing. And so, uh, communicating with the media, um, it sounds like it's a good general rule to run that by the general manager's office of these are comments that I've made. Um, but the expected publication, I feel like, is the more important pit bit of I know that this is a story that's coming out. this is an expected publication. I'm

2:36:56 expecting it to come out on this day. Um, which media can communicate that with you. And so that's how I'm reading the the 48 hours is is, you know, not necessarily I have spoken, but I know that this is coming out on this particular day. Here you go. Um, of of what's happening. Um, and then to Commissioner Carlson's uh point of sort of when those lines are blurred as a commissioner and also in in our day jobs or in our own existences, neighborhood associations, what have you, um, uh, by a commissioner to the media is the words that I'm seeing. And that's how I'm interpreting that is if I with my e-web commissioner hat on and speaking

2:37:41 to the media um then that's how I would move forward. But if I have another hat on um even if it's e-web related matters you know just making sure that that's clear to who you're speaking and and how you're speaking I think that that would clear that up. So um I am fine with it as is. I'm uh but I also uh would be happy to to make an edit if another commissioner has specific language. Thanks. >> Uh I will actually say I did come to that conclusion after I I said that that if I'm if I'm going to be identified in the media specifically as an e webb commissioner then that's when that would trigger it. At least that's yeah how I would read that as well.

2:38:26 >> So we'll go John and then I'm going to jump. yet. Um, and and now that I've got the guardrails figured out, I'm fine. The other the only other thing that I would uh would tell my fellow commissioners is that a lot of times um you know, print media is different than TV media. I've had several times where a TV reporter will go, "Hey, can I come out and talk to you?" And it's for the six o'clock news that evening. You know, they don't they don't usually sit on things for three, four, five days. It's kind of like, can I get a quote from you? And it's on at 4, 6, and 11. And so, just keep that in mind when if it's a if it's a local uh TV media, it may be a a a quicker turnaround than, let's

2:39:13 say, traditional print media. Frank, um just a clarification on the policy about communicating with staff because we got a new GM and I know that I've always any interaction I have with staff is copied you and or Holly and uh but making sure that we don't overwhelm him. Is that still the policy that if I reach out to somebody, you know, in energy and say, "When are you going to open Smith Reservoir so we can go fishing?" Um, but you know that I got to copy you on on all communications that a comm individual commissioner has to staff. It's still not appropriate to reach out to staff without letting you know who's doing what and who. >> The the policy uh President Brown is

2:40:00 probably a little more restrictive than that. It says all communications will go through the general manager. Um I have felt personally um like um it's it's not an issue of control. Commissioners sometimes have specific interests and um adopted the policy that copy the general manager's office. Um, if you do reach out to staff, um, it allows me to gauge the resource levels, the the inquiries, um, um, but the policy is actually a little bit more restricted from that. But as far as present practice, that's present practice. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or

2:40:47 comments? If not, this is an action item and we'd entertain a motion to adopt um board policy manual 20 resolution 2608. >> So, so you move to approve. Is there a second? Second by Schlashber. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying I and raising your hand. Thank you. Passes unanimously. Um, next agenda item is going to be the city of Regina Eugene joint initiative agenda. That's us. >> That really, shouldn't it? >> Hey Sonia, welcome to the >> Sonia is larger than life. >> That's horrifying.

2:41:38 >> You're 2540. >> We're changing that, Sonia. Hold on a second. What happened? What happens if I push this button? >> From the red carpet, Sonia. >> Figure like somebody's looking over my shoulder all the time. Well, it's Sonia and she's 20 feet tall. >> So, we we just passed that. So, next to the city initiatives. >> You hit the >> Let me take a week off. Great. >> This is really commissioner le. Um we do have in April the president and the vice president have a meeting with uh city council leadership and the mayor. Um

2:42:26 these were put forward forward as uh potential topics to be communicating with city the city on. Um and this is really for discussion for the board. um if there's there's other opportunities um or uh things to be discussed or positions to be taken. So, President Brown, I'll just turn it back to you and and um ask if there's other things to include on the agenda. Um, of course, I can reach out to appropriate management on that behalf. >> Yeah, I'd just like to pull the group. You've seen this in your background information. Is there anything you want to you want added besides that? Um uh or if you want to expand on anything? Um I mean I I do have a question personally

2:43:12 about the fire hydrants because we've never monetized that. I mean, we don't know if we're going to get a $10 million. Are they are they what are they giving us? Because, you know, it was alluded to that a lot of them haven't been touched in 20 years. And if we have to come out with a big capital outlay and that comes from the water department, they can't afford it. And I just want I just want to know what we're getting into by taking that. >> Yeah, we uh we do have an assessment of of what the the replacement cost would be based on the the forecasts and projections. Um what we don't have and and um Karen Kelly and Deborah Hart were the the latest um executive members to meet with the city is uh what other

2:43:57 value as part of some kind of of um change in responsibility would uh we negotiate with the city and that is still in negotiations. Um I think on the outside where there was really nothing provided by the city as far as monetary it was about 2%. Was that about right Karen or Deborah? >> Up to 2 million was what they were willing to put on the table. >> So that was their seed part. But if we financed it all ourselves it'd be about 2% rate impact if I recall on the water side. believe that that is correct. If the city brought nothing to the table, >> which is about terms of cash,

2:44:43 >> which is about $900,000 a year on the water side. >> But the the basis for the question that you have, I believe, is we are still negotiating with the city um on what um other types of value potentially financial or otherwise that we could get. So this is it. It says explore the opportunity. We are continuing to explore the opportunity and if it looks like there's something to bring back to this board that is more definitive, we will we will do that. Um, this board obviously will have to approve it and we will want to have all our ducks in a row well understood. Um, as well as the legal pieces of that understood. >> John,

2:45:28 all of these are great things to talk about with them. What I would ask of my fellow board members is to pick the top three because in the meetings that I've had over the last few years, you get about one and a half to two of these things hammered before you start running out of time. And so if we can pick I mean like the first one the or the the public service facilities plan that's an easy one. you just kind of say, "Hey, we're got this thing and we may need we may need your help on that." But when you start getting into um number four, and you know, that's something that touches the elected officials, you know, the the rates and the the uh limited

2:46:13 incomes and stuff like that. If you start talking about that, that's going to take half the meeting because they we'll explain what we're doing and then they'll ask questions and this and that. So, what I would say is pick a couple that you really want to lean into. If it's fire hydrants and limited income or whatever, and just know that that you can present all of this stuff, but you're really going to only be able to dig in deep on one to two issues. From my experience in the past few years having these meetings, >> um, I just want to point out that we will have a new general manager and they will have a new city manager. So, I don't really know how deep we can really dig in on everything because both of them will be learning kind of the lay of the land and who but they'll be learning

2:46:59 their own entity and then learning about us. So, this is this is pretty broad. Um, and I agree with you, John. I mean, I would say in the past when I've been on this, I don't know how many things we actually even dive deep into, but um maybe just I I know that we have to choose the year-long joint initiatives, but it really just seems like it's going to take a while for both this the general manager and the city manager to kind of come up to speed. and this is not going to rise to the top for either of them of things that in their jobs that they want to focus on. So perhaps

2:47:44 really focusing on where our where our goals align where um and just talking about kind of going back to the drawing board talking about areas where we can really um enhance each other's work. >> Yeah. I just remind you our next meeting is April 1st and that'll be before energy comes in >> in theory. I mean, >> yeah, >> it takes a while sometimes to schedule those meetings and then they end up getting rescheduled. So, >> we've we've been through this iteration. I I think April Fool's Day is solid. I think it is. We've gone through about 10 different iterations, but that's set right now for April 1 train. >> Yeah, that I think Commissioner Schllber is is correct. there'll there'll be some

2:48:30 transition. I think if we look at the April 1st meeting, there are a number of things that sort of inflight um support in a number of ways um around the processes associated to support the second source. I think those are things that are in flight, the things associated with um the hydrants that President Brown mentioned, those are things that are in flight that can be kind of the top of the list. some of the other things that are around relationship building, philosophy building, coordination, those things will uh have the opportunity to transition. We also have a relatively new mayor as part of this as well. So, um um as as it goes forward, um they'll there'll be some some shifts to that.

2:49:20 >> Okay, Jim. Sorry. >> Yeah, thank you, Chair. Uh yeah, I I mean I wanted to comment as well of we have new general manager and city manager coming in. Um and uh I approached it I approached that thought in a different perspective. Um also recognizing the city leadership, we have a new mayor um who's in her second year. Um, so news is a relative word, but um, uh, I I think it really I think EWB and our commissioners particularly are in a strong position of leadership and can really drive a a strong agenda with new staff coming in. Um I this is my personal opinion and perspective but the city of Eugene um has been really taking

2:50:05 a a strong look at themselves I've seen as as sort of a council and and sort of a strong look in our community and I know Eb is consistently doing that as well and so I think we're approaching a a a really interesting cooperative future uh in front of us and I would hate to miss that opportunity. Um uh I I I think one thing that I'm seeing that's not here and I hope that it's on the city of Eugene's list, but I would flag it of uh I believe their sustainability staff came forward and said that they are um short of missing of reaching their climate recovery goals uh for 2030. And so while it's not incumbent and required of us to to help

2:50:51 them meet those goals, I think it's helpful and require a requirement of our community um and see what partnerships are are there. Um I I just would hate for it to I would hate for this opportunity from our commissioners to just sort of talk back and forth or talk at each other. um because I think that that we're in a really interesting time um in our community to to really have cooperation, coordination. So um I think all these are are great. I would have I have my own particular top three uh that I would support uh uh to your point, but I I think also um just to flag I think Eb our commissioners and and particularly president vice president are in a really

2:51:36 strong position to to make a a real big difference with with the CDBG. Could I get a clarification on your about the sustainability goals and things because I'm very rate sensitive and you know money cures it all and they you know and I know how they made made some of their goals. they wouldn't bought a forest up in Washington and uh to to meet some of their climate recovery goals. And if it's monetary, I would be reluctant to make that offer, that gesture to the city, at least personally, unless I had the blessing of everybody, because our rateayers would have to supplement the city's goal that the city hasn't figured out how to make. Um, and I would caution caution that. I just want to make sure we don't give that signaling that uh

2:52:21 well because they know that our revenue is generated by what we do with rates and it's not that their revenue is restricted. Ours is not and so I just want to make sure that I have a clear understanding of what you meant by that. >> Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the resolution that was passed last year does have restrictions of what rates we could put on our bills from outside entities which would include the CG. But but if they said they wanted help in achieving their CRO and we we we had to dedicate staff or resources to help them achieve that, that's money. >> And I wanted to make sure that we clear about where we're going with that because I I don't want to because they're they're strapped and you know they're they've got they got a pretty big challenge coming up. So as we all do

2:53:06 and I want to make sure that do everything we can to keep our rates supportable for our customers. Sona, any input on this? Any anything else you see you want to put on there or take off? >> Um, I mean, I, you know, I've, I've also gone through this process a number of times, um, in the nine years I've been on here and meetings with them. I do know it goes quickly. I think we can tick off many of these and just kind of give quick updates. There are a few that require maybe a little bit more, but usually what happens, we we get to tee it up and then we say, "Let's talk next time and get some feedback." And um it's I think it's primarily a relationship building endeavor and highlighting kind of what the things are that are going on

2:53:52 um collaboratively between the two groups so that we can both be on board with, you know, the trajectory. And I do um I do actually appreciate uh what Commissioner uh Morrison said about the sustainability aspect. Um I would like to know what what they're doing. I mean, even if we're not opening it up, I I just I would like to open it up as an opportunity for them to give us feedback around what their plans, what their thoughts are, and how it might impact our work. Um >> Sure. So >> otherwise I I am supportive and appreciate staff outlining this joint agenda. I think these are the main touch points that we have. >> Yeah. Thank thank you. So and just from our last meeting some of the things that

2:54:39 came up and and again there's going to be new leadership on the city side as far as the council president and vice president. Council president's Lindseay Leech. Elias is the vice president. Lindsay was in the ma last meeting we had, but this will be Eliza's first time in that meeting. The things that came up that they were they wanted more information on was electrification and and the grid and how they just wanted to know how it works. They they don't have the understanding like we do. So that was that took up about 20 minutes or so explaining to them some of the electrification things and and the climate recovery ordinance was another one that I think that you you need to be ready to answer that or talk talk about that. But again try and get some of our

2:55:24 points across that we want to move forward as well. Um it's it's educating them, but it's also letting them know that we need they need our help, but we also need their help on some of the projects that we have going forward. >> Sure. >> Any other question? This is an action item. Frank, >> just just one thing um that that we'll need to consider in in the future and and this this comes about I I think from Commissioner Morris and and Carlson's comments. We don't have a liaison role listed here. We have share status from our perspective. Solicit their status, I think, is another piece. For example, where are they at with their climate recovery ordinance? You know, you know, it's a it's a solicit information from

2:56:10 them category. We don't have that here. I think we'll make some notes of that. we don't need it for tonight's approval, but there are certain things that we would like to get from them and and we typically have said this is what we're presenting to you, but we haven't had to solicit the other way around. And I think that's maybe a gap that we'll we'll work on between now and April. >> Well, I mean, I actually think that's a big gap that should be filled. And I think back to the fire feed debacle and um we had meetings with them, joint meetings, and that was never brought up in the meeting. That would have been a perfect opportunity to share for them to share then that hey, this is what we're doing and this is what we're thinking. So um I I actually think

2:56:57 solicit feedback from them needs to rise to the top. >> Any other questions or comments? If not, um I entertain a motion to adopt the um joint initiative agenda. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second >> discussion. >> I would like I would like to see that solicit information on there. >> Okay. Frank, did you indicate that that that's what you're going to do >> in particular? Um the categories. Let me let me reiterate this commissioner. Um where we would solicit status from them

2:57:42 would be specifically associated with for example the climate cap 2.0. Um and maybe there's a category here that would just solicit issues of interest from e webb um perspective. So, I would I'll I'll find a way to characterize that in the update, but that's that's what one specifically. And then the other one is just a general, hey, is there anything you're doing that will affect e webb? Um I I think that we could capture it that way if we need to. >> Does that get to where you want any other discussion? I think that the last one tend to

2:58:27 explore opportunities to support city with encouraging economic development and affordable housing might be one of those where we also could seek their input to say where it where and if is e webb and implement or can help move those forward might be might be another area to submit. I don't think those we left the liaison role blank for that one and and part of the reason there is that it is to explore if if and when there could be opportunities much you know people like the idea of economic development. Economic development is not free. It's not free financially or from a risk perspective.

2:59:12 And so that's not something where we kind of went out and said, "Okay, we're willing to commit to something," but it is certainly something to to initiate a dialogue on. >> Yeah. And while we're on that topic, I mean, the city did get a big multi-million dollar grant for Clear Lake infrastructure, and that's water, sewer, and uh but I don't know about electric because there's no electricity out there. Um, and so I mean I those are the questions I would like to see is out of that $6 million that they got from the legislature, is any of that going to go to offset our costs serving that 300 acres? >> From from my understanding, very little to none. >> Yeah, that's Any other questions or comments? I want to call the question. All those in favor

2:59:57 signify by saying I. I opposed. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. future board agendas. >> I don't any have anything specific, commissioners. I I will say that um um there is a topic that I need to review with staff that we might like to have an executive session on in March. There's plenty of time in the March agenda at at the present. So, we'll look at the timing of that. But I just as a heads up um can take a look at your schedules and might want to um um schedule that. I I don't want to talk specifically about that topic right now, but it um it's something that I'll approach you with in the check-ins, but um unless there's uh

3:00:42 somebody who says, "I I'm I can't do potentially an executive session at 5:00 or 5:15 even," then that was that's just something to plan around. Okay. >> Okay. Anything else, John? So we and this this he'll work out with with the president and with Sonia about actually setting the agenda, but it looks like we added something to you know we added this watershed discussion to next month's agenda. I'm just wondering one how much how much time do you think that we want to put to that? And that's something you guys can discuss, but just think about that. And then um are we going to see another 30

3:01:27 or 40 people standing here uh at at 5:00 again? Do we want to kind of set bound early boundaries? I don't know. I just when we pushed it off, are we are we setting ourselves up for another 9:30 meeting? I just I just wanted to put it out there for future. First of all, I'm pretty sure that we're going to be done before 9:30, so that's great. Um, I think that whoever wants to show up for public, like we can't really limit public public testimony. People can come for whatever they want. Um, and I So anyway, I think that um the president and vice president with Frank will figure out how much time we need for the watershed thing. But in terms of the public testimony, I feel like that's

3:02:13 neither here nor there. handle it like we did tonight. >> Yeah, I think Sonia and I will have agenda setting and I think one of the things I was going to propose that we have a repository for information because I know that if they're providing information to one of us or two of us, I want everybody to get it because I know that they're not communicating at all with John and Sonia and I met with them. Um, and so I want to make sure that we all have the same amount of information because we if we if we pose questions, who do we pose them to? I mean, I have their contact, but you know, how you how do we get those questions posed and then distribute the responses to everybody? Can we make sure that we can do that through the the GM office? >> Yeah, I'll look at the mechanism to do that. I think it's a fair request that you're all working from the same basis.

3:02:59 How we do that within the restrictions of public meetings laws is something I'll have to take a look at. But I I think it is a fair request that uh you're all working from the the same um basis of information that that is possible. So um I'll look at that and I think it is probably fair to say allocating some additional time in March for public testimony given the subject matter is probably a good um prediction. Um I'd take bets on that if anybody would like to. Um, and we'll consider all those things when we do the uh agenda setting. >> And also to be clear, they didn't come to me, I went to them. >> So, um, but I do have a question. Is

3:03:45 that on March 17th, we have an executive session that's scheduled for your performance review? Is that something that we still do? if you would like to. Um um I I think certainly um it's um I think it's a good uh process to continue >> that stays on the calendar. I >> I think part of that is because the way that we have worked this in the past there's birectional communications. I I have the opportunity to provide you with information about the organization and you provide information about um my performance as the general manager. So I think it would be appropriate to continue that.

3:04:31 >> Okay. job. >> So, if you could send out a memo or let us know how what the procedure is for us to ask for information because Sonia's like, I want to talk to our lawyers about this, this, and this. So, if I want to ask the lawyer about this, this, this, if you could send out and tell me the appropriate avenue to do that, that would that would be helpful. >> I'm I'm gonna have to look at that, Commissioner. Okay. Um, the next agenda item is board wrap-up. Mindy, >> um, well, this wasn't my favorite meeting, but, um, I'm, uh, we got through it and, um, we heard

3:05:16 a lot of public testimony and, um, we also hired a new general manager. So, while I will be sad to even go Frank, um it's also exciting that we have hopefully he'll accept. Um but it's exciting to think of new leadership and what that means for the utility. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Thank you, chair. I uh um I just want to thank the board. I think that there was a a tough couple uh agenda items tonight. I think you know uh uh and I think um we we as a board and uh handled it very well. Um and I've been to public meetings with elected

3:06:01 officials who do not handle it well. Um and and uh those opportunities always present themselves when uh folks come out and disagree and are very loud and verbose about it. So um I just want to thank thank the board and and thank staff for um for these challenging times. Uh, thanks Jack. >> Sound good. >> I have two comments. Um, well, three. One, I wanted to um just give a a quick a quick story about um something that I think we might be able to do or we should consider as a board policy. Um, so last year when we voted to change the SDC fees, uh, I think I mentioned at the time

3:06:47 that, um, you know, I just got in quote on what the what the fees would be and what the implementation would be. And then I went to the bank and, you know, got all the loan documents lined up and then we voted and it got implemented within a few weeks and that like immediately changed. And yes, I know I'm on the board. I should know that. But thinking with my public citizen hat around what the implications of that are, um I I think there might be an opportunity to to ease our process with having like 90-day quotes or other standard things that people, you know, expect in the general public. And so it's just something that I would um if if others were interested in looking at those kind of policies, this might be a

3:07:33 kind of um transitionary policy that encourages housing and economic development, but doesn't cost us a lot, but it does make the process easier for people who are attempting to to do these kind of projects. Um it's not easy. It's one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do in my life, and it's mind-boggling. So, you know, I I feel for people who have to deal with this day in and day out, and I'm thankful that I'm getting this firsthand perspective into engaging with um our utility and our public processes in this way. >> So, I can't see any head nods, so I don't know if people are like generally supportive of that conversation or not. I did want to bring it up during the board agendas, but um I got jumped over

3:08:18 and didn't want to interrupt the conversation. So, >> it was to restate what you want us to what you want to do. You want to revisit the voting polic we voted on an STC methodology and then 10 days later you were affected by it or what? What? I'm >> We voted on a rate change, >> right? none of the fees. >> It was well okay. So it's there is a portion of our fees that I mean I can show you but it goes onto the bill. So it's it's that and it's the rate that we charge for um like water and sewer. And so what happens is that you know we get a quote, we up the fees. anybody who got

3:09:04 that quote within a certain amount of time. I mean, it was only a few weeks when it when it then changed. And so when I, you know, went through that process, it's it's a minor thing, but I think what we could do is put into the policy something around, you know, when when there's a fee change or increase. If somebody has been given a quote, there's like a 90-day window for implementation. So, if it's a new one and they come in, then yes, they get the new quote. But if they're in that that window of opportunity because it it does take a lot of work to be able to, you know, go to the banks and get the fees changed and here's the amount and then we had to go back and do the whole thing again. So anyway, it's a minor policy change, but I think it's maybe something worth thinking about if there's others

3:09:50 that are interested in exploring it more. >> Can you um President, let me just weigh in on this. This was not the SDC conversation. we've deferred that but we do an annual fee adjustment and it could be it's a connection charge there's different site different meters get and um I don't think it's inappropriate at all to when we do that have some degree of lead time associated with it I think the next time we bring fees um to the board for approval we can stagger the implementation so that um people who are inflight a reasonable in-flight period wouldn't see something change between when they start when they end. We we can just take that on. I don't think that needs board action or policy. I I think

3:10:35 it's great feedback, but just to clarify, it wasn't the SDC methodology. We're we're going to have that conversation coming up. This was associated with our annual adjustment of fees, and we can we can accommodate uh Commissioner Carlson's request next time we bring those fees to the board. >> Sure. >> Um Tim, you you wanted to wasn't done yet. I'm sorry. You had two more. Well, so did he want to comment on that particular item or is there >> No, he's Frank's going to take care of that. >> Okay. All right. Um and then the last thing I just wanted to say, um thank you to the commissioners this evening. I know I um the next month may be challenging and I appreciate your lenience and willingness to um let me

3:11:20 entertain some more thoughts. So I just appreciate that and I know that it's it has caused your lives undue stress. So I for that I just apologize but I do appreciate the opportunity. So thank you. >> Yeah, you had a comment. >> Uh I I was only going to mention um May 5th looks like we have an SDC methodology conversation. So that was it. >> Okay. Um I John, have you chimed in yet? >> I haven't. Thank you. Um board wrap-up. Again, thanks to the fellow commissioners. Uh you know, we uh we work through some of these things. I think it's our board functions very well. We we saw

3:12:07 that demonstrated tonight. We saw that demonstrated in our hard work in in recruiting and hiring a new general manager. Uh we project that to the rest of the staff. I hope. Um, and I think that, you know, these cycles come up whenever politics kind of comes plays into the boardroom, it it makes it a little bit more challenging. But I I like the fact that we all look at it through the lens of of what is going to be best for our customers, our staff, and our community as a whole. So, I appreciate the the cander that you guys bring to this board. Y I got just a couple things I forgot to mention earlier. Um on the 20th I've been asked to present at the city club

3:12:53 with the with the city council and another person about governance and things like that. I guess because of my long tenure. I don't know why they selected me but I know Aaron's gonna going to prop me up and tell me what to say and what not to say and keep me out of trouble. And then uh I drew the short straw going to DC for the APA. never done that and I thought I was going to get through the rest of my life without wearing another sport coat, but maybe I'm going to have to do it again. So, I'm going to be back there from the 21st to the 23rd, I think. Quick trip. So, with that, um, anything else, Frank, for the good of the order, back >> for, you know, 31 people to show up to testify this evening. That's like a record. >> We we do what we can, Commissioner. >> Okay. Well, thank you. With that, I'm going to enjoy meeting.

3:13:40 Thank you. Yeah.