CC Minutes - 09/19/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

with reassurances that the water and electric ratepayers would not fund future telecommunications costs and indebtedness did not distinguish between short- and long-term indebtedness. Ms. Bettman noted that EWEB's modeling of the risk indicated there was a 90 percent chance revenue would not meet projections. Mr. Farr expressed trust in the EWEB board and management and believed the voters also trusted EWEB. He reiterated his previous concerns about violating the public's trust. He thought the voters would support EWEB in another special election. He asked about the implications to EWEB of a five-month delay. Ms. Wright said she would prefer to consult with potential telecommunications customers before she answered that question. Mr. Bartel indicated that without adoption of the resolution, the project stopped. Mr. Farr determined from staff that a special election would cost about $100,000. Mayor Torrey said in the event of a tie, he would vote against the motion. He was not opposed to the proposed project, but he was concerned that EWEB was risking its credibility with the community. He did not believe the community understood what EWEB was doing, and he feared the upcoming electricity rate increase would be perceived by the public as paying for the costs of the system. He acknowledged that was not the case, but repeated it would be the community perception. Mayor Torrey encouraged EWEB to hold another vote. In the interim, EWEB would have the opportunity to prove the project's viability. If the voters voted no, he advised EWEB to take their advice. Mayor Torrey acknowledged that in the absence of competition, some private providers would be slow in providing telecommunications access; he suggested that over the next five months, EWEB could leverage their guarantee to provide the service if it did not. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend the item an additional ten minutes. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Farr voting no. Responding to a request for input from Mr. Farr, City Manager Jim Johnson believed that it was EWEB's responsibility to educate the public. He thought there would be confusion, but it was hard to judge the extent of that confusion, or the extent to which people understood the distinctions between the resolutions or recalled what was said during the election campaign or printed in the voters pamphlet. He thought that any problem would be perceived as EWEB's problem rather than the City of Eugene's problem. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson confirmed the statement of EWEB's bond counsel. Ms. Bettman said if the council did not adopt the amended resolution, it was her understanding that the remaining $4.5 million could be used for continued planning and community education and outreach in preparation for another vote. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 19, 2001 Page 6 Work Session