Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey asked EWEB representatives if the utility would be prepared to sell its position to <br />an outside entity if the service proved viable. Mr. Bartel said no. It would be a publicly owned <br />and operated system. He noted that the EWEB commissioners were elected and things can <br />change; what was policy today was yesterday's "interesting item." However, the board was <br />committed to providing the community with universal access. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked what "ordinary" people gained from the first phase of the project. Ms. Wright <br />said that they might work in places where they gained from the high-speed access provided <br />through the system. They may be business owners who were able to grow their businesses using <br />the service. She hoped that the first phase would also serve some residents, such as the higher <br />density residential areas near downtown. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if it was EWEB's intent to modify its plan to provide service to PeaceHealth <br />sooner at its Crescent site if it moved. Ms. Wright said no. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she worked hard at the national level to preserve the municipal authority to do <br />just what EWEB wanted to do. She spoke of the digital divide, saying that Eugene was not a <br />high-tech community in that existing local businesses would not remain competitive without <br />broadband access. Citizens who want to telecommute or start home occupations would not be <br />able to do so if Eugene remained a "backwater" community. Ms. Nathanson said the community <br />did not have the telecommunications highway needed. She supported the proposed resolution. <br />She saw a public benefit from MetroNet and supported it as a first step to universal access. She <br />noted that the citizen involvement group, of which she was a member, had discussed the need for <br />competition, which did not currently exist. If Eugene did not provide the service to itself, it would <br />not get it from the private sector, as small- and medium-sized cities were often bypassed by large <br />providers. <br />Mr. Kelly said that the public benefit of MetroNet was confirmed by those he spoke to about the <br />proposal. They thought it was a good idea particularly ifEWEB could deliver the service on <br />schedule. The services to be provided were either not available or were available from a single <br />provider at a high cost if the circumstances were just right. He thought the system would bring <br />competition into the market. He pointed out that in Ashland, cable rates had dropped when the <br />City became a provider. He also agreed it was an economic development strategy for companies <br />to grow in Eugene rather than relocate to find the service. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said in terms of the resolution, he needed a timeline for the provision of universal <br />service, and a statement of current intent regarding build-out in year six. He said that it was not <br />acceptable to him for EWEB not to build in downtown. Ms. Wright assured the council that <br />EWEB intended to serve the downtown if it built at all. Mr. Smith agreed, adding that EWEB was <br />committed to serving downtown and the financial plan included a downtown node and a significant <br />amount of fiber was proposed to be installed in downtown. He said that one issue that must be <br />addressed was the parameters of downtown. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />