CC Minutes - 09/19/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

opportunities. He did not think the existing service providers would provide the system to the community in as timely a fashion. Mr. Rayor noted his concurrence with many of Ms. Nathanson's remarks, particularly with regard to phasing. Mr. Rayor clarified with Ms. Wright the details of the original bond and what the bond had funded. Mr. Rayor asked how long it would take for the utility to clear a default. Ms. Wright said it depended on when the default happened; she noted that the 20-year bonds were initially issued in 1998. Mr. Rayor called attention to a typographic error in Section 2(d) of the revised resolution on page 2, noting subsection "5" should be subsection "e." Mr. Rayor did not recall that the charter amendment passed by the voters was specific to funding. Ms. Wright agreed, but pointed out that the joint resolution specific to the funding mechanism was included in the voters pamphlet as background. Mr. Meisner said that developmentally, economically, and philosophically the project made sense. However, he shared Mr. Farr's concern over the breach of trust with the voters. There was to be no future indebtedness without obtaining voter approval. Mr. Meisner said he had called those offering him comment about the initial resolution the previous year and was surprised to find them unanimously opposed to amending the resolution. They opposed offering service to commercial users first rather than residents first; while they understood a phased approach, they would have liked to have had a voice in the phasing through a vote; and they were also concerned about using recourse bonding at this time. Even though the bond counsel indicated the proceeds could be legally used for MetroNet, Mr. Meisner did not think the use of those proceeds was consistent with the joint resolution, which he maintained people had read carefully. He was not prepared to support the resolution at this time. He suggested that EWEB offer a phased system to the voters in a new ballot measure. Ms. Taylor was inclined to support the resolution, in part because the funding did not depend on the resolution and because no further money was proposed to be spent in a different way. She questioned what happened if the utility did not have enough money to complete the system, asked the voters for it, and was turned down. Ms. Wright said that EWEB would sell the distribution part of the system together with a lease on backbone fiber. She termed that the worst-case solution to the worst-case scenario. Ms. Taylor asked ifEWEB objected to going to the voters again. Mr. Berggren said it was a matter of timing and expense. Ms. Taylor asked what was lost if the system was started and not MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 19, 2001 Page 4 Work Session