Laserfiche WebLink
telecommunications activities without obtaining both council and voter approval. He asked why <br />that point was so important previously, and why it was being overridden. Mr. Berggren clarified it <br />was not EWEB's intent to bypass the resolution. He reminded the council that the context for the <br />first resolution was EWEB's interest in pursuing an immediate, universal build-out. That required <br />$100 million and additional bonding authority; EWEB had existing authority under its existing <br />Phase 1 authorization that was sufficient to meet the cash flow needs of the MetroNet project. <br />EWEB would not need to go out for the $100 million in additional debt until the universal build <br />out occurred. EWEB was now acknowledging that if the electric utility provided a rate pledge <br />above the $15 million existing debt, the maximum risk was about one percent per month for rate <br />payers. Mr. Berggren said the spirit of the proposal was not to avoid voter approval of universal <br />build-out. EWEB did not see the value of going to the voters at this time given the existing <br />borrowing authority. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought EWEB's proposed approach put the council in an awkward position, given its <br />previous agreement to go to the voters. The council would be put in the position of voting on a <br />resolution authorizing EWEB not to go to the voters. Mr. Berggren pointed out that the board <br />would have to vote in support of a new joint resolution as well. <br /> <br />Ms. Wright said that what made the model smart was that it was incremental in nature, and it used <br />service providers who were aware of their markets. That made it hard to get a vote on. It was not <br />a product that would initially touch a lot of people, although it would touch their interests. She <br />suggested it would make it difficult to educate the voters of the benefit. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner left the meeting room. <br /> <br />With regard to Mr. Meisner's remarks, Ms. Nathanson suggested the difference was a matter of <br />scale. The project was a smaller portion of a larger amount of bonded indebtedness and was not <br />planned indebtedness, but rather a "pay-as-you-go approach," and a potential risk factor. She <br />suggested it was unlikely the entire $1.2 million would be at risk, but more likely a portion of that. <br />Mr. Berggren concurred, saying it would be whatever the revenue shortfall was in any given year. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson emphasized the importance of the official statement by the American Public Power <br />Association on page 37 of the packet. Referring to page 40, Ms. Nathanson asked that EWEB <br />consider a term other than "data center." Also on the same page, Ms. Nathanson said that the <br />reference to "provides value and services largely unavailable in this market," was not to direct <br />consumer services, but to the provision of a service related to how technology was delivered. She <br />thought the use of the word "services" somewhat misleading. Ms. Wright concurred, saying that <br />the focus was on local area network-type services on a metropolitan area scale. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked when EWEB would start selling bandwidth to private internet service providers <br />(ISPs) and other customers and when the four geographic regions would be ready to serve. Ms. <br />Wright anticipated that EWEB would work with the service providers in the detailed design phase <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />