Mayor Piercy

Document Sample
Mayor Piercy Powered By Docstoc
					October 24, 2006

Kitty Piercy, Mayor
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793

Dear Mayor Piercy and Council Members:

RE: Proposed Ordinance Establishing a Real Property Value-Added Charge

If the proposed real property value-added charge were applied to EWEB property, it would cost
EWEB ratepayers millions. Most of these ratepayers are the same citizens that the proposed tax is
designed to help.

Like School District 4J and other public agencies that own property in the City of Eugene, EWEB
depends upon the revenue from sales of surplus property to keep costs down. This proposed tax
would discourage the sale of public property, as any transfer to private property requires a change
in zoning, and thus a 25% tax on the increased value. This ordinance could result in public land
being held in public hands, rather than being redeveloped to meet the increased densities and
infill that the City of Eugene is seeking.

One dramatic example of the impact that this ordinance would have is with EWEB’s riverfront
property. As you know, EWEB plans to move the field operations off the current riverfront site.
The value of this land in its current zoning is has not been established. However, in an agreement
with the City of Eugene, we had an appraisal done in 2004 based on future zoning that would be
consistent with the uses proposed in the “Eugene Downtown Plan, December 2001.”
Conceivably, the difference between the current Public Land and Industrial zoning and future
Commercial and Residential zoning could be in the millions of dollars. The proposed ordinance
would require that this tax be paid by EWEB. This is a major deterrent to selling and
redeveloping this property. This would be in direct contradiction to the goals set forth in your
own land use plans expressed in the Downtown Plan.

As elected officials, we understand the desire to seek new revenue, and realize that Measure 37
could have a very detrimental effect on the City’s planning. It would appear to be fairer to apply
this tax only to those filing a Measure 37 claim. In addition, since citizens voted in Measure 37,
they should be given the opportunity to vote on actions designed to resolve the problems created
by Measure 37.

This proposed ordinance would have a negative effect on public agencies, local citizens and the
City’s overall land use planning goals. Please continue to explore other alternatives to
compensate for Measure 37.

Sincerely,



Sandra Bishop
EWEB President

cc. Dennis Taylor, City Manager
    George Russell, School District 4J
October 24, 2006

Faye Stewart, Chair
Regional Policy Advisory Board
Lane Council of Governments
99 East Broadway, Suite 400
Eugene, Oregon 97401-3111

Dear Chairman Stewart and Board Members:

RE: Continuation of regional planning efforts.

The Region 2050 planning process has been very helpful to EWEB in planning future
water and electric facilities. The process identified many critical issues and provided a
forum for data gathering, analysis and community discussion. Although not all local
governments have chosen to endorse the strategy, EWEB continues to support regional
planning and coordination of public facilities.

We want to thank the members of the Regional Policy Advisory Board for their many
years of hard work and for providing a forum for the public to focus on critical issues that
are best addressed at the regional level. The work of the Board, as well as the LCOG
Staff, especially Carol Heinkel, Region 2050 Project Manager, has set in motion a sound
process to continue working on regional issues.

EWEB is specifically interested in ongoing regional discussions around water supply.
One of our goals is to develop a long-term water supply strategy to maintain existing
water rights. Continued coordination with the City of Eugene and other local
governments in the region is critical for us to accomplish this goal. If a formal, or
informal, group is established to maintain coordination of facilities planning, please
include EWEB in those efforts.

Again, thank you for the excellent process and invaluable information that has resulted
from the Region 2050 process. We hope to continue working with interested parties in
regional provision of public facilities.

Sincerely,



Sandra Bishop
EWEB President

c. C. Heinkel, LCOG
   K. Yeiter, Eugene Planning
October 18, 2006


Kitty Piercy, Mayor
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793

Dear Mayor Piercy and Council Members:

          RE: Letter of October 11, 2006 “Quail Run and concrete transmission towers”

EWEB has received your letter of October 11, 2006, expressing concern about EWEB
transmission towers in the Quail Run area. We understand that residents in the area spoke
to the City Council on September 25, 2006, and that you have received background
materials sent to you by EWEB on September 26, 2006.

Below are responses to questions you posed in your letter of October 11, 2006. In
addition, the following materials are attached for your information:

       Attachment A: “EWEB Response to Questions from Bob Kline, President
                     Harlow Neighbors for the meeting on October 11, 2006.”

       Attachment B: “Memorandum from Deb Brewer to EWEB Commissioners,

       Attachment C: “Memorandum from Richard Lehigh to EWEB Commissioners,
                      June 28, 2006.”

The Eugene City Charter vests complete control of the electric utility of the city,
including safety of poles and other electric utility facilities to EWEB. We want to assure
you that EWEB takes its responsibility for public health and safety very seriously.
EWEB designs its transmission system to meet or exceed national standards (National
Electric Safety Code) and goes beyond the requirements of the Oregon Public Utilities
Commission to inspect the transmission system twice a year rather than the required once
every other year.

We want to assure you and the council that the electric system’s transmission poles are
structurally sound and safe. As the responses to the questions illustrate, the poles that fell
in the Quail Run area on May 21, 2006, did so because a severe wind and hail storm
caused large trees to fall on a transmission line, not due to any structural flaw or defect in
these poles. EWEB’s response to this storm damage and follow up replacement of
facilities and inspections has been prudent, timely and responsible. EWEB has an
excellent safety record, and we will continue to be vigilant in making safety a priority in
the design, operation and maintenance of utility facilities.
Question No. 1 What tests were performed on the transmission tower that fell over to
determine the reasons for the failure?

       Response: EWEB inspected the scene of the storm damage soon after the storm
       and determined that large cottonwood trees fell on the transmission lines. The
       assessment indicated that the extreme additional weight of the fallen trees resulted
       in a shock load causing the guy wires to loosen. With uneven tension on each side
       of the pole, the pole was in an unbalanced loading condition resulting in it being
       pulled over and eventual failure. Therefore, the structural integrity of the pole was
       never in question.

Question No. 2: In light of that (and other) information, what assurances can EWEB
provide that other concrete transmission towers will not suffer the same fate?

       Response: Safety is critical to EWEB’s business. The transmission system is the
       backbone of the electrical system serving the entire area. The Oregon Public
       Utilities Commission prescribes safety standards and EWEB operates and
       maintains its transmission system consistent with those regulations.

       EWEB designs its system based on the requirements of the National Electric
       Safety Code (NESC) and is the standard for all utilities in this country. Under
       Section 25, a utility can choose whether it wants to build its system to a Grade B
       or Grade C, with Grade B having higher strength requirements of the two. EWEB
       designs its transmission system to a Grade B standard. These loading factors are
       accompanied by overload capacity factors (i.e. safety factors) in the range of
       250% to 400% of expected loads.

       These concrete towers have pre-stressed steel cables interlaced with steel rebar
       inside the poles, and throughout their length. These concrete poles have a high
       safety rating.

       It is also important to note that not one of these poles failed during the major wind
       storm of February 2002, which was perhaps a bigger storm than the 1962
       Columbus Day storm in terms of damage to the electric system and tree damage.
       In the 30 to 40 year history of these poles, only one other known incident that we
       know of has occurred in which a concrete tower fell—a truck traveling at high
       speed struck a pole at Beltline and Barger a few years ago.

Question No. 3: What kind of study or analysis has EWEB made or is EWEB making of
the other concrete towers in the area to ensure that no other tower will topple or fail?

       Response: A combination of the design standards for these concrete towers, as
       well as EWEB’s ongoing inspection program, provides assurance that the existing
       transmission towers are safe. The Quail Run residents have expressed concern
       about the concrete tower just north of the one that fell on May 21, 2006. EWEB
       engineers, as well as a structural engineer from Morse Bros, have inspected this
       pole and found no safety reason to replace the pole. For added assurance, EWEB
       is hiring an independent engineer to do a third examination of this pole. EWEB’s
       transmission line inspection schedule calls for patrolling all transmission lines
       twice a year: once in the fall, prior to storm season, and once in the spring after
       the storm season. A detailed inspection takes place every seven years. (See
       Response No. 4 below)

Question No. 4: What inspection program does EWEB have to ensure that trees and
other vegetation will not impact these towers or transmission lines in the event of severe
storms that may cause the trees to fall over (potentially, on to transmission lines or
against towers)?

       Response: EWEB inspects all transmission facilities twice each year. Crews make
       notes of any problems, including tree hazards, and these concerns are addressed
       promptly. Trees outside of the rights-of-way that are dead, leaning or somehow
       posing a threat to the line are removed with property owner approval. Healthy
       trees outside of the rights-of-way that are not posing an immediate threat to the
       line are noted and evaluated during the inspections.

We hope that this information responds to your concerns.

Sincerely,



Sandra Bishop
EWEB President

cc. Dennis Taylor, Eugene City Manager
    Randy L. Berggren, General Manager
                                                              Attachment A


    EWEB Response to Questions From Bob Kline, President Harlow Neighbors
                      For Meeting on October 11, 2006

1. Question: In the meetings that were held between EWEB and Clem Bosch, Peg
   Renkert, and Bob Kline, EWEB mentioned that there were four alternatives for
   locating the failed towers, what were the four alternatives, what was the EWEB’s
   analysis of each, which alternative was selected and for what reasons?

       Response: See Question 1 of Attachment A (page one) of October 5th memo,
       as well as the June 28, 2006, Memo from Richard Lehigh. (page 6 of hand-
       out.) The staff analysis of the options outlined in the memo stated the advantages
       and disadvantages of each of the 4 options. The overall goal was to provide a safe
       alternative that would meet critical deadline of getting the power back to the
       system by mid-October.

2. Question: There have been ongoing discussions with EWEB about the replacement
   of the bowed concrete tower in the Quail Run parking lot with steel, what is EWEB’s
   rational for not replacing that tower with steel towers?

       Response: See Question 1 (page 1) and Question 5, (page 3) of October 5th
       Memo. EWEB engineers as well as Morse Bros. Engineers have inspected the
       concrete near Quail Run and determined that there is no need for replacement.

3. Question: Explain how EWEB can be assured that the concrete tower in the Quail
   Run parking lot that is bowed does not have stress cracks since concrete’s strength in
   not in bending and if there are cracks undetected by just a visual examination could
   these undetected cracks cause a subsequent tower failure?

       Response same as #2: See Question 1 (page 1) and Question 5, (page 3) of
       October 5th Memo. The recent inspections by engineers resulted in no safety
       reason to replace this pole. EWEB will continue to inspect this, and all other
       transmission poles twice a year.

       When EWEB visited the site with a structural engineer from Morse Bros. Inc. no
       cracks were detected. These structures have pre-stressed steel cables interlaced
       with steel rebar inside the poles, and throughout their length. The Morse Bros.
       engineer indicated that no additional investigation was required.

4. Question: Does EWEB have a plan for replacing all its concrete reinforced towers, if
   so what is that plan and if not how does EWEB propose to provide the information
   that will ease the public’s concern about the safety of these towers?

       Response : See Questions 3 & 4 (pages 2 & 3) of October 5th memo.
       EWEB does not have a plan to replace concrete reinforced towers because there is
       no indication that this is necessary. Safety is critical to EWEB’s business. The
       transmission system is the backbone of the electrical system serving the entire
       area. The Oregon Public Utilities Commission prescribes safety standards and
       EWEB operates and maintains its transmission system consistent with those
       regulations. These concrete poles have a high safety rating and, in the major storm
       in February 2002, not one of these poles failed.

       EWEB designs its system based on the requirements of the National Electric
       Safety Code (NESC) and is the standard for all utilities in this country. Sections
       25 (ie. Grades of Construction) and 26 (ie. Strength Requirements) are used in
       designing overhead lines. Under Section 25, a utility can choose whether it wants
       to build its system to a Grade B or Grade C, with Grade B having higher strength
       requirements of the two. EWEB designs its transmission system to a Grade B
       standard. Also associated with the grade of construction are assumed design
       loading conditions (Heavy, Medium, or Light) on the respective line. These
       design loads incorporate prospective ice, wind, and temperature loadings that the
       line could experience over its life. EWEB generally chooses Medium Loading in
       town (ie. 1/4 inch radial ice, 40 mph wind, at 15 deg. F) or Heavy Loading up
       river (ie. ½ inch radial ice, 40 mph wind, at 0 deg. F). Light loading assumes no
       ice, but higher wind (59 mph) at 30 deg. F, and generally results in lower
       structural requirements than Medium or Heavy due to the ice loads and
       correspondingly greater surface areas. These loading categories are accompanied
       by Overload Capacity Factors (ie. safety factors) in the range of 250% to 400% of
       expected loads. There is also an Extreme Wind Loading requirement which
       provides for winds of approximately 80 mph.

       EWEB has approximately 164 miles of overhead transmission in the service
       territory. Assuming $500/circuit foot to underground, this would translate to
       $433 million plus removal of existing overhead system. This could easily cost 2-3
       times that amount. I think one could say that an ultimate cost of $1 - $1.5 billion
       would not be out of the question. Even if these costs were to be bonded, it would
       result in rate increases of about 70%-90%.

       The transmission line corridors are inspected twice a year. (*Note- The PUC only
       requires inspections once every other year.) Trees outside of the rights-of-way
       that are dead, leaning or somehow posing a threat to the line are removed with
       property owner approval. Healthy trees outside of the rights-of-way that are not
       posing an immediate threat to the line, even though they may fall in the event of a
       large storm event, are noted and evaluated during the inspections.

5. Question: Can EWEB give the residences of Quail Run with homes adjacent to the
   transmission lines & towers a written engineering report that assures them no towers
   will fail from future extreme weather conditions?

       Response: (Same as #4) EWEB will give Quail run residents the same assurances
       that it provides all other customers. We can provide documentation that we build
       to national standards and that we follow or exceed all regulations of the Oregon
       PUC.
6. Question: Has EWEB assessed the potential danger to the new housing & senior
   retirement complex developments along Garden Way where concrete reinforced
   transmission towers now exist and what actions will EWEB take to assure that a
   similar failure would not endanger those residents?

       Response: See Questions 3 & 4 (pages 2 & 3) of October 5th memo.
       EWEB’s transmission system in this area meets all requirements of the national
       and state safety codes. In addition, EWEB inspects all transmission facilities
       twice each year. Crews make notes of any problems and these concerns are
       addressed promptly. There is nothing to indicate that the existing transmission
       towers are unsafe.

7. Question: In view of the Quail Run Transmission tower failure what is EWEB’s
   program to check city wide for bent towers & trees adjacent to transmission lines that
   need to be trimmed or removed, since we are now into our storm season?

       Response: See Questions 3 & 4 (pages 2 & 3) of October 5th memo.
       Since the pole along the Covey Lane transmission line fell due to large trees
       falling into the lines, EWEB will proceed with its regular safety procedures. We
       will continue to build the transmission system to Grade B standards and inspect
       the system twice a year.

       EWEB’s transmission line inspection schedule calls for patrolling all transmission
       lines twice a year. Once in the fall; pre-storm season, and once in the spring;
       post-storm season. This consists primarily of a visual inspection of each pole and
       the area surrounding the line to identify tree problems, damaged insulators,
       Osprey nests, and other potential problems. Problems are identified and recorded
       on a "Form 3 - Plant Condition Form.”

       A detailed inspection takes place every 7 years. This includes a pole test and
       treatment for our wood poles.

8. Question: Did EWEB conduct structural analysis/tests of the failed sections for
   structural integrity or deficiencies of the two towers, and if so will these analyses be
   provided to the public?

       Response: See Question 5 (page 3) of October 5th memo. EWEB inspected the
       scene of the storm damage soon after the storm and determined that large
       cottonwood trees fell on the transmission lines. The assessment showed that
       concrete towers were not the cause, and therefore, no additional inspection of the
       poles was necessary. Information related to this incident has been shared with you
       and the public.

9. Question: If no tests were conducted by EWEB on the failed towers and they have
   been destroyed what was the rational for EWEB’s immediate destruction of the failed
   towers?

       Response: See Question 5 (pages 3-4) of October 5th Memo. EWEB records
       show that there was no need for additional inspection of the poles that were
       damaged during the May 21st storm. They also show that the poles sat on the
       ground for 9 days before being removed to Eugene Sand and Gravel. Any
       interested person could have inspected the poles during those 9 days.

10. Question: Why after numerous requests by the home owner and her insurance
    company has EWEB been unwilling to provide for independent testing sections of the
    failed towers? Where is the debris from the failed towers?

       Response: See Question 5 (pages 3-4) of October 5th memo.

11. Question: Does EWEB have a plan to put the transmission lines in the Harlow
    neighborhood and others in the City underground in view of this and previous big cell
    storms?

       Response: EWEB does not have plans to put the transmission lines in the Harlow
       neighborhood underground. There is no safety reason to do so and this would be
       extremely expensive for all of EWEB customers. EWEB does have a policy that
       allows customers to pay for relocation or undergrounding of facilities if they
       choose to do so.

       The distance that would be required to underground the Quail Run neighborhood
       is roughly ½ mile and at $500/ circuit foot this would correspond to $2-$2.5
       million, assuming some savings due to placing 2 circuits in the same ditch. The
       distance for extending the underground lines to Currin Substation is roughly
       another ½ mile, which would result in similar costs to underground. So, to
       underground the line all the way to Currin would be in the $4-$5 million range.

12. Question: Will EWEB make available to The Harlow Neighborhood Association,
    Quail Run Homeowners Association, Peg Renkert, and citizen-owners of EWEB, all
    copies of all minutes, written summaries, tests, test analyses, decisions about
    relocating/replacement of the failed and other towers within Quail Run and any other
    documents relating to the May 21st Quail Run transmission line failures? If not why?

       Response: EWEB has produced copies of relevant documents. Because Peg
       Renkert has indicated she may take legal action, all further inquiries will be
       directed to our legal counsel.

13. Question: Will EWEB provide written responses to all questions asked at the Harlow
    Neighborhood Association10/11 meeting no later than 10/18?

       Response: This document, along with the October 5, 2006 Memo from Deborrah
       Brewer to the EWEB Commissioners, (with Attachments) are the written
       response to the questions presented prior to the Harlow Neighborhood
       Association 10/11/06 meeting.
                                                                                       Attachment B
                                                             EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD
                                                                GENERAL MANAGER’S DIVISION



TO:           Commissioners Bishop, Menegat, Simpson, Lanning and Farmer
FROM:         Deb Brewer
DATE:         October 5, 2006
SUBJECT: Covey Lane Transmission Line Update


Issue Statement:
Since the storm incident in the vicinity of Covey Lane on May 21, 2006, EWEB has proceeded with
restoring the transmission facilities that were damaged during that storm. The residents of the Quail
Run/Harlow Neighborhood have raised concerns about the event as well as the safety of the
transmission system along Covey Lane. Some residents also appeared before the Eugene City
Council on September 25, 2006. The Harlow Neighborhood Group has invited EWEB
representatives to discuss this issue at their Executive Committee Meeting on October 11, 2006.
Commissioner Ron Farmer will be EWEB’s main spokesperson at this meeting. Jim Wiley, Director
of Electric Division, and Deborrah Brewer, Governmental Affairs Coordinator, will also attend to
support Commissioner Farmer


Background:
Attached are several documents that provide information about recent events related to the storm
incident in the Covey Lane Area on May 21, 2006. These include:
             o Attachment A: “EWEB Response to Questions Posed by Harlow Neighbors
                                (Response October 5, 2006)
                                - Memo from June 28, 2006 from Richard Lehigh
             o Attachment B: “Minutes of Eugene City Council, September 25, 2006”
                                - “Public Input from Quail Run/Harlow Neighbors”
                                - “Council Comments After Public Forum”
Discussion: This information is provided as background. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Recommendation: None at this time.
Requested Action: None at this time.
                                                                              Attachment A
                                                                               Memo of Oct 5, 2006


                   EWEB Response to Questions posed by Harlow Neighbors
                                   (Response October 5, 2006)


Below is EWEB’s response to the questions raised by local residents in an e-mail from Bob Kline,
President of the Harlow Neighborhood Association in an e-mail on September 23, 2006. These will
be sent to Bob Kline in an e-mail on October 5, 2006.


1. Question: What was the basis for EWEB's decisions to replace the towers?

       Answer: EWEB’s decision to replace the towers was based on the engineering staff analysis
       of options outlined in the internal memo of June 28, 2006 (Attached). This option was
       confirmed in discussions with EWEB Commissioners.

       The EWEB Commissioners delegate operational decisions to the General Manager. The
       normal response to storm damage is for operational departments to assess the damage and
       respond as quickly as possible. In some cases, the operations personnel will confirm a
       decision with the Division Director and the General Manager. If the General Manager feels
       that the EWEB Commissioners need to be informed, he will meet with them to confirm an
       operational decision. This is what transpired after the storm event of May 21, 2006.

       Because the storm damage along Covey Lane involved 115KV transmission lines that serve
       EWEB’s entire system, EWEB engineers were asked to assess the damage and recommend a
       remedy as soon as possible. In June, the General Manager asked for an assessment of the
       options and a recommendation. This information was provided in a memo from Richard
       Lehigh, EWEB’s Electrical Staff Engineer on June 28, 2006.

       In paragraph two under “Background,” of that memo, staff states, “Based on Engineering
       Department power Flows, it is also imperative that the transmission system be restored to
       normal operating configuration by mid-October 2006.” To ensure that the poles could be
       ordered and the work scheduled prior to this October deadline, the decision about which
       option to choose needed to be made immediately. Randy Berggren worked with EWEB
       engineers and made the decision to proceed with Option 1. This option called for the
       replacement of the east and west sets of concrete poles with heavy-duty steel poles. The
       reasons for selecting this option are outlined in the memo. In short, this option provided the
       most advantages and the fewest disadvantages. The EWEB Commissioners were informed of
       the staff decision and were provided a copy of the staff analysis at the Board’s regular
       meeting on July 5, 2006.

       EWEB staff also evaluated whether or not to replace the fifth concrete tower that was
       affected by the storm incident. This double-circuit tower directly to the north of the two
       failed poles was evaluated by EWEB engineers; and based on that investigation it was the
       engineer’s opinion that the structure was sound. EWEB decided that no further review of
       that specific structure’s integrity was needed.
2. Question: Why there was no discussions with those of us interested in relocating the failed
towers, before EWEB made their current decision for replacement instead of relocation?

       Answer:
       EWEB representatives met with four local residents on June 9, 2006, to listen to concerns
       and discuss preliminary options. Throughout June additional meetings were held with local
       residents responding to questions and discussing possible solutions.

       During this time EWEB staff members met with Peg Renkert and responded to questions
       from other local residents about EWEB’s future plans. On July 5, 2006, seven residents of
       the Quail Run area -provided input to the EWEB Commissioners during the public comment
       period of that regularly scheduled Board Meeting. On August 18, 2006, a letter was mailed
       to the residents of both the Quail Run Homeowners Association and the Harlow
       Neighborhood Association that had appeared before the EWEB Commissioner, or who had
       expressed interest in the project. The letter outlined EWEB’s decision to proceed with heavy-
       duty steel pole replacement and invited residents to call EWEB if they had questions or
       would like to meet to discuss the project further.


3. Question: There is an issue about home values being affected for not only the damaged
home but for other homes in Quail Run adjacent to the transmission lines/towers. Is EWEB
willing to write a report assuring there will not be any chance of any transmission tower
failures in the future for those towers in Quail Run?

       Answer: The attached memo of June 28, 2006, describes the engineering soundness of
       Option 1; which includes removing potentially hazardous trees as well as replacing the four
       concrete poles with steel poles. This memo, along with the Morse Bros. evaluation of the 5th
       concrete tower, provides the basis for a sound engineering decision that ensures the safety of
       EWEB facilities in the area. This information can be provided to any future homebuyer that
       may have concerns about the safety of EWEB facilities.


4. Question: There is an issue about the potential for failure in other identical transmission
towers in the Harlow Neighborhood. Note, that along Garden Way where there will be a new
development with 40 plus homes and a retirement apartment complex built, plus a retail
center in the early planning stages where there are a number of transmission towers like the
ones that failed. I might also note, I was in western Eugene off Highway 99 to the South and
saw identical transmission towers/lines with a line of tall trees adjacent to those lines with
houses nearby where a potential for a similar incident could occur. Since the Quail Run
incident has EWEB inspected or planning to inspect all the concrete towers in the City for the
safety of the residents, particularly for those towers that may be bowed or have tall trees
adjacent to them that could cause a line or tower failure. It seems to me when safety of citizens
is at stake EWEB would put in the extra effort to assure it's customers they have made that
extra effort in favor of their safety, and have not considered this as just a random failure.

       Answer: It is significant to note that EWEB has never had a concrete transmission structure
       fail during a storm. There was a concrete tower that was broken after being struck by a van
       traveling 60-70 mph several years ago, and some damage caused by a lightning strike, but
       nothing of this nature. The concrete poles were selected years ago for their strength and
      long-term durability. In general, they have performed extremely well for many years, and we
      expect that they will for many more.

      Public safety is and has always been a critical concern for EWEB. Like other electric utilities
      in Oregon, the safety of EWEB’s system is regulated by the Oregon Public Utilities
      Commission. EWEB has an ongoing tree-trimming program to identify problem trees to be
      proactive in our trimming efforts. We also have a pole inspection and replacement program
      whereby we regularly inspect poles and replace any of those that are found to show any signs
      of weakness. The events that precipitated the Quail Run incident were extraordinary and
      caused an impact from unforeseen natural forces, not from the failure of the EWEB’s
      transmission system.

      EWEB’s records show that the Alvey-Currin, Currin-Laurel 115 KV transmission lines were
      inspected between 4/25/06 and 5/1/06. There is a Plant Condition form for 4/25/06 at pole
      31983 "So. of Covey Lane and West of I-5", that identifies an osprey nest on top of the
      structure. This pole is three spans south of the poles that failed during the storm. No other
      notes were made on any of the other poles inspected.


5. Question: We would like a discussion and explanation of why the failed transmission
towers were, as we are told, destroyed, after requests were made by the homeowner to be able
to inspect them. It would seem logical to most of us that EWEB would have made their own
physical analysis of the failed structures and if requested allow an inspection by other
interested parties. There is a concern when there is a question of safety of Eugene citizen
involved why a detailed analysis of the failures was not conducted and published for your
Board of Directors, those concerned in City Government, and involved citizens. Was this
incident taken too lightly by EWEB?

      Answer: Site and pole inspection: Immediately after May 21st, EWEB engineers were asked
      to inspect Covey Lane and do an assessment of the cause and remedy of the storm damage.
      Rich Lehigh, EWEB’s Electric Engineer did an assessment of the site. At a meeting with
      EWEB staff and interested residents: Peg Renkert, Bob Kline, Clem Bosch and Elliott
      Braaten, on June 9, 2006, Rich Lehigh summarized his inspection of the site and provided his
      assessment as to why he thinks the pole failed.

      It appears that the storm uprooted several cottonwood trees in the wetland area at the south
      end of the Quail Run development. When the trees fell on the westerly pole, the shock load
      caused the guy wires to pull free of the strand vises, which attach the guy wires to the anchor
      rods. . The combined weight of the cottonwood trees & the normal tensions in the wires
      (now increased by the weight of the fallen trees and wind load) was sufficient to topple the
      first pole. The second pole (which fell into Peg's roof) was then impacted in a similar
      manner to the first, with the added addition of the weight of the first pole & tensions/weight
      imputed by the cottonwood trees. These poles were not in a weakened condition prior to the
      storm, but were not designed to withstand this type of unusual/ extraordinary loading
      required of them from the fallen trees.

      As an additional precaution, EWEB requested an inspection by Morse Brothers, Inc. We
      received the following e-mail from Pay Hynes, Director of Sales and Engineering
      Morse Brothers, Inc.”

             “July 2006
              Rich,
              My response to your three items is as follows:
              “… I observed no cracks in the north existing pole. It is bowing slightly to the north,
              but I feel that the magnitude of the bow is acceptable. If it is reconnected to a similar
              condition prior to this accident I see that it should perform as originally designed.

              It appears that both poles in question broke off at the ground line. I saw no indication,
              in my limited visit, that there were any foundation failures. In my opinion these poles
              did fail due to the tree falling on the guy wire and creating an unbalance load that was
              above the design capacity and strength of the pole. Once the one pole broke the
              adjacent pole was also overloaded and also broke. The fact that the north pole
              withstood the new forces induced by the failed poles is testimony to the reserve
              capacity of these concrete poles. Again no cracks were observed in the remaining
              north pole. I have no reason to believe that the system was unsafe other than an act of
              nature from the load induced by the falling tree.

              Sincerely,
              Pat Hynes”

       Removal of poles
       Below is a summary of the events related to the poles being removed from the site after the
       May 21st storm event. Note that the pole that fell actually remained on the ground for nine
       days (May 21-30) before it was removed. We believe that this would have been ample time
       for anyone to inspect the pole.

       5/21/2006 - Storm causes multiple cottonwoods to go over impacting transmission line and
       causing poles to fail. Failed poles are laid alongside the bike path for later pick up and
       disposal. The pole that fell onto a residence was removed from the residence and laid
       alongside the bike path with the other poles.

       5/22/2006 - Construction crew is sent to pick up poles as requested by a customer. A local
       resident who worked nights objected to noise and crew are pulled off job. (Standard
       procedure is for crews to hydro hammer the concrete and then remove the steel rebar from
       the center of the concrete pole. The pieces of the pole are then taken to a local sand and
       gravel company.)

       5/29/2006 – The line department receives a complaint that poles are still on site and request
       that they be removed. The Construction Department is directed to remove the poles.

       5/30/2006 - Construction crew arrives and uses hydro-hammer to break up poles into 10'
       pieces. Material is then hauled to Eugene Sand and Gravel and dumped in their spoils pit.

6. Question: Are there minutes of EWEB internal meetings on the subject of the transmission
line failure and decisions made that are available to the public & if so could you bring copies to
the meeting.

       Answer: The most relevant document is the memo from Richard Lehigh on June 28, 2006.
       This was handed out at the July 5, 2006 and is public record. There were also numerous
       email, discussions, meetings, phone calls, with individuals from residents of the Harlow
       Neighborhood and Quail Run Development.
                                                                                       Attachment C

                                                                    MEMORANDUM
                                                            EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD
                                                                ELECTRIC SERVICES DIVISION



TO:     Commissioners Bishop, Menegat, Simpson, Lanning, and Farmer
FROM: Richard Lehigh (Staff Engineer, Electrical)
DATE: 6-28-06
RE: Transmission Poles Damaged from 5-21-06 Storm (Quail Run Subdiv.)


Issue Statement

Discussion of transmission pole replacement options (5-21-06 storm) for Quail Run (involving
Alvey-Currin and Laurel-Currin transmission lines)

Background
On the evening of 05-21-06, extreme weather conditions resulted in the failure of 2 concrete
transmission structures, precipitated by high winds and falling trees. Initially, at least 1 large tree
fell across the Alvey-Currin T/L causing concrete structure #31986 to fail. This failure subsequently
resulted in the failure of adjacent easterly concrete structure #31987 (Laurel-Curin T/L), which
ultimately fell into the roof of an adjacent home (owned by Peggy Renkert) as well as other
localized damage. Below is a summary of several options to restore the transmission facilities.

Regardless of what option is ultimately selected, it is imperative that EWEB do whatever is
necessary to mitigate future exposure to falling trees. This will almost certainly require the removal
of numbers of the larger existing trees close to the T/L’s. EWEB’s Arborist, Ron Dyer, is actively
pursuing options in this regard with the City’s arborist. Based on Engineering Dept. Power Flows it
is also imperative that the transmission system be restored to normal operating configuration by mid-
October 2006.

Discussion
EWEB Engineering has developed 4 specific replacement options to restore transmission system
integrity:

   1. Option 1 – Replace both sets existing corner dead-end poles (both east and west sets of
      structures, 4 poles total) in same location as existing concrete poles, however, with stronger
      steel poles.

           -   Advantages
                   • Upgrades pole sets at both locations for enhanced future reliability.
                   • Can use existing foundation culverts & anchor blocks. This will save
                       considerable $$$ and help to expedite the replacement process (new anchor
                       blocks would take 3-4 weeks to cure properly).

                                                    x
                                               Page 1
                     • Using existing locations will minimize need to re-design requirements,
                       obtain easements and/or ROW, minimize environmental issues, and enables
                       expeditious project completion. Environmental advises that any pole
                       locations other than existing will require permits under Goal 5 Riparian
                       Protection, which involves extensive public process for siting.
                    • Addresses structural concerns with easterly poles - essentially same height
                       & class as westerly destroyed poles.
                    • Cost estimated at $30K-$35K per pole or total of $120K-$140K.
           -   Disadvantages
                    • Cost is higher than replacing only the 2 structures that were destroyed (see
                       Option2).

Summary Option 1 (estimated cost $120K-$140K) - This design is inherently more reliable that the
previous design since the proposed steel poles are substantially stronger (over 6 times, GLM
capacity of 139 kip-ft. vs. 1035 kip-ft.) than the original concrete poles. Structure “failure” would
constitute buckling of the pole and not catastrophic failure as occurred with the concrete structures.
Transmission line exposure to danger trees, if not removed, would persist.

   2. Option 2 - Replace existing 2 destroyed poles in same location, with steel poles.

             - Advantages
                   • Least $$$ option. Estimated at $30K-$35K per pole or total of $60K-$70K.
                   • Using existing locations will minimize need to re-design requirements,
                       obtain easements and/or ROW, avoids environmental issues involved with
                       major relocation, and enables expeditious project completion.
            - Disadvantages
                   • Fails to address structural concerns with easterly poles - essentially same
                       height & class as westerly destroyed poles.

Summary Option 2 (estimated cost $60K-$70K) - This option is the same as Option 1 but provides
only for the replacement of the 2 poles that failed. It is EWEB Engineering’s recommendation that
replacement of all 4 poles is a more prudent path at this time. As with Option 1, this design is
inherently more reliable that the previous design for the same reasons discussed under Option 1.
Transmission line exposure to danger trees, if not removed, would persist.


   3. Option 3 - Replace westerly failed poles with a single self-supporting structure, and likely
      would require replacement of both sets of structures due to changes in line angles.
         - Advantages
                  • Would eliminate need and issues related to guying. However, line
                      conductors would still have exposure to falling trees if this is not adequately
                      mitigated. Structure would not break and fall as with prior structures, but
                      line could still be knocked out of service.
                  • Would necessarily have to place a structure of this size somewhat southerly
                      of previous structure locations. This is probably only a perceived advantage
                      since a structure of this size/material (ie. steel & much stronger than
                      previous concrete poles) would not break and fall anyway, as did the
                      concrete poles. Poles would deflect (also relieving line tension) but not
                                                    x
                                               Page 2
                      break and fall as did concrete poles.
          -   Disadantages
                   • This structure would be the most $$$ of any option - probably $200K-
                      $250K per structure, possibly more, to replace each set of 2 poles, either
                      westerly or easterly. Total cost to replace both east and west pole sets
                      would be $400K-$500K.
                   • Would necessarily have to place a structure of this size somewhat southerly
                      of previous structure locations requiring various permits and delays.
                   • EWEB Environmental advises that any modifications to existing line
                      configuration will create multiple issues re. wetlands encroachment as well
                      as all issues surrounding constructability between existing poles or south
                      thereof.
                   • Lead time for this option would be long (likely 8-10 months+) - would
                      require geotechnical work for foundations and/or anchor blocks (1-2 months
                      minimum), design work for the pole itself (1-2 months minimum), special
                      contract work for foundation (1 month minimum, after receipt of anchor bolt
                      cage), fabrication of structure (5-6 months after release to fabricate),
                      easements/ROW issues, etc., etc.. Some of these activities could occur
                      simultaneously, but 8-10 months would be fairly optimistic for a final
                      completion. This does not include any time required to resolve possible
                      environmental and/or special permitting issues - could be substantial also.
                   • Location of westerly pole to south would likely render easterly poles out of
                      design specs due to line angles, guying, etc. and would make replacement of
                      easterly poles imperative/highly desirable. Consequently, another $200K-
                      $250K of expense.

Summary Option 3 (estimated cost $400K-$500K) - This option would provide for very strong non-
guyed structures at considerable expense and almost surely unworkable timelines. Transmission line
exposure to danger trees, if not removed, would persist. Not considered to be significantly more
reliable than Option 1.


   4. Option 4 - Replace easterly and westerly sets of poles further south to achieve greater
      separation from dwellings - Similar to Option 2, only 150-200 feet further south (ie. out of
      swale on higher ground).
         - Advantages
                   • Would provide additional separation from existing dwellings
         - Disadvantages
                   • Would require new easement/ROW procurement
                   • Could require new interset pole due to additional span and/or line sag issues.
                       Estimated additional cost of $30K-$35K.
                   • Would place new line even closer to trees, this time to the south of them,
                      unless line was moved an additional span south, further encroaching on City
                      land.
                   • Would use same poles as in Option 2, but would require new foundations,
                      and anchoring provisions at additional $$$ cost. Estimated at $10K
                      additional per pole or a total of $40K additional.
                   • Could require that many more of the trees be removed south of the swale,
                                                  x
                                             Page 3
                        since the line could be more readily impacted by these trees.
                    •   Soil conditions are unknown as it is thought that this area was part of a
                        previous dump site (Day Island Landfill). Issues re. excavation, soil
                        stability, and hazardous waste are all possible. Would impact pole
                        foundations as well as anchoring.
                    •   Environmental advises that Goal 5 Riparian Protection permitting process
                        will accompany any changes from existing pole locations …would be an
                        extensive permitting process (6 months+), public comment process, etc….”
                    •   The overall cost increase for this option would likely be over $100K (ie.
                        $40K for original 4 poles, $35K for new interset pole, plus unknown
                        permitting/environmental costs.)

Summary Option 4 (estimated cost $220K-$240K) - This option would provide for relocation of the
line to the south of the existing T/L, with less exposure to existing dwellings, but at substantially
greater cost than the recommended. In the event EWEB could ultimately obtain permission to
relocate the line further south, the timelines involved might be excessive and be overridden by
EWEB’s need to restore the T/L’s normal system configuration before winter peaks.


Recommendation

 EWEB’s evaluation/recommendation criteria are driven from: 1) a need to restore system integrity
before winter peaks, 2) to provide a cost effective and structurally reliable solution, and 3) to
address ongoing necessary tree removal/exposure issues. It is EWEB Engineering’s
recommendation that Option 1 is clearly the most reasonable solution. Option 1 addresses all salient
issues relating to time constraints, financial stewardship, and future system reliability.

Requested Action
It is requested that the Board approve Option 1 as delineated above, so that staff can proceed with
expeditious repair of the transmission system.




                                                    x
                                               Page 4
                                                             EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD




DATE:          September 27, 2006

TO:            Commissioners Bishop, Menegat, Simpson, Lanning, Farmer

FROM:          Mark Freeman, Customer Service Supervisor

SUBJECT:       Atrium Customer Service Hours Change


Issue Statement:

EWEB’s current public access hours, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., make it difficult for many of our customers to
access our atrium customer services. As a result, EWEB will change its atrium customer service
access hours to 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on November 6, 2006.

Background:

In June of 2003, EWEB changed it’s public access, phone and HQ building hours, to 9 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. in a “tool kit” effort to save $100,000 in overtime expense. Looking back it appears we have
reduced our overtime by just over $120,000 per year. Although this accomplished the cost savings it
also reduced our customers access to EWEB and made EWEB the local utility with the least amount of
public access hours.

           •   Lane Electric: Monday to Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
           •   Blachly Lane: Monday to Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
           •   EPUD: Monday to Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
           •   SUB: Monday to Friday 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
           •   Clark Public Utilities: Monday to Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
           •   SMUD: Monday to Friday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Discussion:

It is very difficult for a customer who works from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to utilize our atrium for customer
service. Many customers are required or choose to come into our atrium to start or stop service, rectify
discrepancies on their account and make payments. Also, many of EWEB’s customers pay only with
cash and must come to our atrium to pay.

For example, when a customer receives a door hanger that states their service is scheduled for
disconnection if a payment is not received, this creates urgency on the customers part and if they find
this notice after they get off work at 5 p.m., many customers rush to EWEB to rectify the situation only
to find a locked door. We typically have one or more customers who approach our security guards at
the front doors or other employees as they exit the building, to plead their case and request access to
the atrium to conduct a transaction.

In 2005 we adopted a service strategy of “Rely on us.” and EWEB thinks our customers should be able
to “Rely on us.” to provide assistance when it is convenient for the customer, not when it is convenient
for EWEB. Our process will begin by extending our hours to 5:30 p.m. for a defined period of time
(six months to a year), to gauge the response of our customers. There will be limited “advertisement”
of our new hours, atrium signage, web page updates, new hours posted on the door, the Intercom and
perhaps the Pipeline. We will continue to track customer traffic and be able to monitor the customer
usage of these extended hours. If the demand is there, we may look into extending beyond 5:30 p.m.
We think it will be better to add time later if the demand is there, as opposed to taking it away if the
demand is not there. The phone center hours will remain 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The financial impact will be minimal. The three Customer Service Representatives whose work
schedules will change to 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. may have occasional overtime to attend meetings and
trainings that begin prior to their start time.

Other departments are aware of this change and support it.

Summary

In an effort to perpetuate EWEB’s “Rely on us.” service strategy, the Customer and Financial Services
Division will be extending our atrium customer service hours to 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. beginning
November 6, 2006.
                                                                         MEMORANDUM
                                                                  EUGENE WATER & ELECTRIC BOARD
                                                                     GENERAL MANAGER’S DIVISION



TO:           Commissioners Bishop, Menegat, Simpson, Lanning and Farmer
FROM:         Lance Robertson, External Communications Coordinator
DATE:         Oct. 10, 2006
SUBJECT: Special 95th anniversary section in The Register-Guard

On Wednesday, Oct. 18, The Register-Guard is scheduled to publish a special 12-page tabloid section
commemorating EWEB’s 95th anniversary. This section was written, designed and produced by EWEB’s
Public Affairs Department staff and will be printed by the R-G and inserted into Wednesday’s paper.
This section has been in the planning stages since the start of the year. We originally had planned to
publish this effort in the spring, but the publication date was delayed until now due to the labor strike.
Funds for the publication were included in the 2006 budget.

Although the publication commemorates EWEB’s 95th year, it takes a more forward-looking approach to
the various initiatives EWEB has undertaken recently, such as the Roosevelt relocation project and
Carmen-Smith relicensing. The theme is “Preparing for the Next Century.” Since the spring/summer
issue of Pipeline was a special eight-page edition devoted almost entirely to Carmen-Smith relicensing,
we decided to make Roosevelt relocation the key “initiative” for this particular publication.

In addition to articles on the relocation project and relicensing, it features stories related to electric and
water service reliability improvements, water quality protection initiatives, EWEB’s 30th year of energy
conservation, profiles of several employees, and the utility’s recent renewable energy projects. A short
article describes EWEB’s unique nature as a public utility with a separate, elected board, and includes a
group photo and brief descriptions of commissioners.

In addition to inserting the tabloid section in newspaper, the publication also will be available through
the end of 2006 on The Register-Guard’s web site, as well as our own web site.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:22
posted:12/9/2011
language:
pages:21