CC Minutes - 09/19/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

finished. Ms. Wright said that conceivably, nothing would be lost because the community would still have the components of the system, now owned by a private provider. Ms. Taylor determined from Ms. Wright that it was not possible to get a measure on the November 2001 ballot but it was still possible to get one on the March or May 2002 ballot. Ms. Nathanson thanked staff for providing her with a copy of the charter amendment and suggested that the McNutt Room could benefit from Internet access. Staff could look up information on line when needed. Ms. Nathanson quoted the following from the charter amendment: "The board is further authorized to provide advanced telecommunications capability and associated services, including but not limited to, voice, video, data, internet, and telecommunications services." She said the amendment did not describe the phasing sequence, nor did it include a funding amount; it was intended to give broad authorization to EWEB to enter into a new area of service provision. She believed the proposed service was important enough to be called a utility. Ms. Nathanson likened the system to a telephone system, asking what would happen if only half the city's citizens could access long distance service. People would think it wrong. She said that Internet access was becoming as essential as telephone service. Ms. Nathanson did not think that modifying the resolution changed the intent of the charter amendment or what the voters approved. Ms. Nathanson did not want Eugene to become an economic "backwater," and said that would occur if the citizens did not have the technology to do what they needed to do. She regretted Eugene's lack of access to broadband, noting that nearly all of Springfield had such access. She said that the project in question was an even better new technology. Ms. Bettman did not support the amendment to the resolution, adding that not supporting the resolution did not mean the project could not go forward; it meant that EWEB had to uphold the agreement to provide universal service it made to the voters in 1999 or go back to the voters to modify the plan. She believed that the voters' support of the charter amendment was based on the assurances printed in the voters pamphlet. She quoted from the resolution printed in the pamphlet: "Any indebtedness incurred for EWEB's telecommunications activities shall utilize only finance that is nonrecourse to EWEB's electric and water utility system revenues and assets." She said the $4.5 million is recourse to the electric and water utilities, and any loss would be borne by the ratepayers. Ms. Bettman said that might not seem like a large amount, but she noted that EWEB was on a future council agenda with a request for $2.5 million in low-income energy assistance because of anticipated rate increases. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson's comments, Ms. Bettman said that a previous council had inserted itself into the process by stipulating that EWEB would not incur future indebtedness for its telecommunications activities without first obtaining the approval of the City Council and then the voters. Three of the commissioners had argued for the charter amendment in the voters pamphlet MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 19, 2001 Page 5 Work Session