Text Size:   A+ A- A   •   Text Only
Site Image

Tuesday, August 20, 2002
NELA Conference Room, Suite 275
Salem, Oregon
Present at Board Office:
William Orr, RG, Board Chairperson
Charles Hester, CPA, Public Member
Eileen Webb, RG
Susanna Knight, Administrator
Present via Telephone:
David Michael, RG, CEG
Gary Peterson, RG, CEG
John Beaulieu, RG, CEG, State Geologist
No Guests Present.
The Meeting was called to order by Chairperson William Orr at 11:00 AM. Oral role call was taken
Orr stated that the purpose of this meeting is to discuss any issues related to the Development Agreement so as to agree to proceed with the project by authorizing Administrator Susanna Knight to sign the Development Agreement on behalf of the Board. He confirmed with all Board Members that they had the Development Agreement, the cover letter (August 8, 2002) from AAG Eric Iverson and the Three Board Agreement draft in front of them. Orr stated that the letter from Iverson was very direct and clearly outlined those Agreement issues that remained to be resolved. He stated that now is the time for all Board Members to ask questions and clarify any concerns. During the Board discussion the following issue was raised: concern over comprehensiveness of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and the probable need for a Phase II ESA follow-up work due to the age of all buildings currently located on all five tax lots affected by the Agreement. The Board was in agreement that the cover letter of August 8, 2002 did capture the issues of the Development Agreement that need follow-up. In addition, the Board suggested the following for the Three-Board Agreement: equal voting rights for all three administrators and an attorney's review of the Three-Board Agreement.
Orr requested a motion from the Board. Webb moved to approve the Development Agreement and give Administrator Knight the authority to sign on behalf of the Board with the following conditions:
  • the concerns raised in the August 8, 2002, letter from Eric Iverson, AAG to Dave Hilgemann, Attorney at Law be resolved to the Board's satisfaction;
  • the Phase I ESA [See 6. Conditions Precedent to Buyer's Obligations A. 4.] must meet the ASTM standards for Phase I ESA reports;
  • any recognized environmental conditions (REC's) raised in the Phase I ESA Report be resolved to the Board's satisfaction, which could necessitate completing a Phase II ESA to the Board's satisfaction; and
  • the developer will assume costs of environmental liability follow-up actions.
Chair Orr requested a roll call vote: Beaulieu, absent; Hester, yes; Michael, yes; Peterson, yes; Webb, yes; Orr, yes. Motion passed with a unanimous vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Susanna Knight
(Minutes were approved at the September 11, 2002, Board Meeting)