Laserfiche WebLink
to determine the best order of service. She said that the plan was to begin to provide services by <br />the first quarter of fiscal year 2002. The four geographic areas would be served by mid-summer <br />2002. Mr. Smith confirmed a statement by Mr. Kelly that by September 2002 the full MetroNet <br />backbone would be "up and running." <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the service boundaries in downtown Eugene <br />and if that included the University of Oregon and PeaceHealth, Ms. Wright said that had not been <br />determined. At this point, the utility was least certain about the downtown area because of <br />uncertainty about the facility that would be used. The Aster project seemed to be on hold, and <br />EWEB was open to other possibilities. She said that EWEB had talked to PeaceHealth about <br />serving it, regardless of its location. Mr. Smith added that a large part of the design work would <br />be as a result of conversations with service providers; if the service providers believed that one <br />area had a priority over another, EWEB would be influenced by the customer base of the <br />providers. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly acknowledged the need to serve customers where they were, but wanted EWEB to <br />recognize that where it laid fiber would determine some business locations. He said that he would <br />object if businesses downtown were not served. Ms. Wright stressed that EWEB was very <br />committed to downtown and had spoken to many potential users downtown. The issue was where <br />to build within the March-September window. Mr. Kelly requested a follow-up memorandum <br />regarding whether the September 2002 target included service to downtown. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Bartel said that the EWEB commissioners had the same <br />discussion. He said the issue affecting the delivery of service was density; he suggested that a lot <br />of the project's success depended on the council's commitment to density, to making nodal <br />development occur in a reasonable way, and to downtown. He said that there was no question in <br />his mind that if those commitments were realized, EWEB would be ready to serve downtown. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was in total agreement with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. She said that private <br />investments would follow the service, and TransPlan represented a commitment to increased <br />employment densities in the designated nodes. If the service did not reach those nodes but served <br />areas outside the nodes, that was where the development would occur, which was inconsistent <br />with adopted City policies and TransPlan. Ms. Bettman emphasized the public nature of the <br />service, and said it should have a public benefit. In the absence of universal service, she questioned <br />its public benefit and whether it should be provided privately. She did not consider it an essential <br />service. Regarding universal service, Ms. Bettman asked if the bond measure for the universal <br />service would be for $100 million. Ms. Wright said yes. Ms. Bettman asked what happened if the <br />voters voted the bond measure down, and all that was left was the component under consideration <br />now. She did not think it would meet the definition of a public utility because it provided service <br />only to certain geographic areas. Ms. Bettman supported the initial wording in the resolution of <br />March 2000. She could only consider a change in the resolution if it addressed that issue. She <br />suggested it could be addressed by holding a vote now. As EWEB moved forward with its <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />