Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
opportunities. He did not think the existing service providers would provide the system to the <br />community in as timely a fashion. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted his concurrence with many of Ms. Nathanson's remarks, particularly with regard <br />to phasing. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor clarified with Ms. Wright the details of the original bond and what the bond had funded. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked how long it would take for the utility to clear a default. Ms. Wright said it <br />depended on when the default happened; she noted that the 20-year bonds were initially issued in <br />1998. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor called attention to a typographic error in Section 2(d) of the revised resolution on page <br />2, noting subsection "5" should be subsection "e." <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor did not recall that the charter amendment passed by the voters was specific to funding. <br />Ms. Wright agreed, but pointed out that the joint resolution specific to the funding mechanism was <br />included in the voters pamphlet as background. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that developmentally, economically, and philosophically the project made sense. <br />However, he shared Mr. Farr's concern over the breach of trust with the voters. There was to be <br />no future indebtedness without obtaining voter approval. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he had called those offering him comment about the initial resolution the previous <br />year and was surprised to find them unanimously opposed to amending the resolution. They <br />opposed offering service to commercial users first rather than residents first; while they understood <br />a phased approach, they would have liked to have had a voice in the phasing through a vote; and <br />they were also concerned about using recourse bonding at this time. Even though the bond <br />counsel indicated the proceeds could be legally used for MetroNet, Mr. Meisner did not think the <br />use of those proceeds was consistent with the joint resolution, which he maintained people had <br />read carefully. He was not prepared to support the resolution at this time. He suggested that <br />EWEB offer a phased system to the voters in a new ballot measure. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor was inclined to support the resolution, in part because the funding did not depend on <br />the resolution and because no further money was proposed to be spent in a different way. She <br />questioned what happened if the utility did not have enough money to complete the system, asked <br />the voters for it, and was turned down. Ms. Wright said that EWEB would sell the distribution <br />part of the system together with a lease on backbone fiber. She termed that the worst-case <br />solution to the worst-case scenario. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked ifEWEB objected to going to the voters again. Mr. Berggren said it was a <br />matter of timing and expense. Ms. Taylor asked what was lost if the system was started and not <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 19, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />