Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Wright responded to Mr. Farr's concern, saying that the only difference was that in the charter <br />vote the discussion was around new money, and the money in question was existing money, and <br />EWEB's bond counsel had indicated that funding the project was an acceptable use of those bond <br />proceeds. Mr. Farr said he was comfortable with the explanation, but it did not address what he <br />believed would be the negative perception in the community. There were people who believed that <br />if the council changed the wording in the joint resolution, it would be changing what they voted <br />on. He had not made up his mind at this point, but was inclined to vote against the resolution. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked whether the the original resolution would move forward if the council did not <br />adopt the amended resolution. Ms. Wright said yes. <br /> <br />Regarding the issue of short-term borrowing, Ms. Bettman said the cost of MetroNet build was <br />about $10 million; there was $4.5 million left from the original bond, so it was clear there was <br />insufficient money to pay for the MetroNet project. That left the real possibility the utility would <br />have to seek more funding from the voters in two more votes, one for the short-term funding, and <br />one for the long-term funding. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed that the project was a good economic development tool and she wanted to <br />see it go forward, but had yet to hear an argument that justified amending the original resolution. <br />She found the amended resolution to be inconsistent with the initial resolution, particularly in <br />regard to future indebtedness. She thought providing limited commercial service and separating it <br />from the universal build would prejudice the outcome of the universal build. Ms. Bettman said that <br />presumably, public utilities provided the service because universal service was generally not <br />profitable, and there was cross-subsidization between the commercial and residential customers. <br />She was concerned that there would be a limited number of businesses able to benefit from the <br />public investment in MetroNet, giving those businesses a competitive advantage; universal build <br />would spread that advantage to many more businesses, taking away the competitive edge from the <br />businesses initially served, and she questioned whether EWEB would lose those businesses' <br />support for a universal build. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 had not been in favor of the original resolution because he thought EWEB should have <br />had a business plan first. He was pleased because there was now a business plan and because he <br />thought EWEB did a good job in engaging the public about the project and giving the council time <br />to educate itself about the issues involved. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 thought the business plan lacking in the ways mentioned in a recent editorial published in <br />The Register-Guard, and expressed hope the commissioners would consider the questions voiced <br />in that editorial and answer them. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 said that the council should acknowledge that acceptance of the resolution was changing <br />what the council approved previously; that is, that the indebtedness for the project would be paid <br />for by the project. He agreed that there was an economic development benefit from the project, <br />and those he had spoken to said they would use the system and it would enhance their business <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 19, 2001 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />