Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

for language to amend the resolution so that any budget authority or resource allocation decisions were brought first to the council. Mr. Lidz explained that the intent of the consortium agreement was that the consortium derived revenue from the lease of dark fiber and that revenue was available to the consortium to expend; no funds from the City's coffers should be available for the consortium to spend. He asked if Ms. Bettman still wished to have consortium expenditures approved by the council. Ms. Bettman asked how much revenue was generated annually and what portion of that was generated by Eugene. Mr. Mecham said the operating budget for both consortia was under $100,000 and Eugene generated none of the revenue. Ms. Bettman asked if there were likely to be future expenditures that would exceed available revenue and require investments such as revenue bonds. Mr. Mecham said that was theoretically possible but he thought it was unlikely that the representatives of local governments would be interested in bonding. He said the intent was for the consortium to operate without the need for borrowing and the vision was to use private capital investments. He said the difficulty of submitting budget decisions to the City of Eugene for approval was that the consortium was established as a separate legal entity and allowing Eugene or any other city to have veto authority over budget decisions would blur the separation of financial obligations. He reiterated that the consortium had no ability to create a financial obligation for Eugene, but blurring the separation could pose greater financial risk for the City. Ms. Bettman asserted that she found the language related to the consortium's authority to enter into contracts and expend funds confusing. She said she had no context for the amount of money that might be involved in ten years. She asked how much revenue staff projected might be generated by the City of Eugene and go directly to the consortium in the future. Mr. Mecham said that the amount would be zero, as the consortium would not have access to any funds from the City of Eugene without the City of Eugene's prior approval. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Granting Comcast of Oregon II, Inc., an Additional Term and Franchise Renewal for the Operation of a Cable Communications System; Amend- ing Ordinance 19775; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Ms. Berrian related that the City's cable television franchise was a contract with Comcast granting permission to use the City's public rights-of-way for commercial television activities. She said City code, federal law and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules governed franchise agreements. She mentioned that complaints related to programming, channel changes and most rate increases were outside the purview of local governments and the responsibility of the FCC and Congress. She reviewed the history of the cable television franchise and said Eugene, Springfield and Lane County had worked together to develop separate but identical franchises and that regional approach had worked well for resolving issues. Ms. Berrian stated that the current franchise was 15-years-old and would sunset in July 2008. She was proposing a renewed agreement that contained provisions that in her opinion would likely have been validated and put in place by a formal process, but without the cost of that formal process. She said City Council adoption of an ordinance was necessary to enact that type of contract. While many of the desired current provisions would be retained she highlighted some components of the new agreement including $20,000 in matching funds from Comcast for a downtown build out, provision of several additional no-cost MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 15, 2007 Page 9 Public Hearing