Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman believed that moving forward with a system split up between the MetroNet and the <br />universal build jeopardized the universal build; the two systems must move forward, linked, or <br />there was no guarantee of a universal build. If universal build was the council's ultimate objective, <br />she asked why not get certainty and community support early in the process, rather than investing <br />in the commercial aspect of the project and never having universal build. <br /> <br />Referring to the potential the system did not work or the voters would not support it, Mr. Pap~ <br />reiterated that the first backstop was not to increase rates, but to sell the system. There was a <br />potential the system could be worth more than the utility's investment. Any failure would not all <br />fall on the rate payers. Mr. Pap~ thought the project was a risk venture, but it was risk being <br />taken, and he thought the risk involved was being addressed reasonably. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson indicated appreciation for Mr. Pap6's comments, saying those facts had been key to <br />her when reviewing the business plan. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Bettman's statements regarding the need to move forward with MetroNet and <br />universal build in a linked fashion, Ms. Nathanson did not agree that what was being proposed <br />would preclude universal build. Rather, EWEB was proposing a phased approach that made the <br />most sense to it. She agreed that universal access was very important, and emphasized that it was <br />still part of EWEB's plan. She noted that those speaking in support of the concept before the <br />EWEB commissioners included representatives of public utilities, school districts, and nonprofits. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, City Attorney Glenn Klein said he perceived no <br />potential loopholes in the amendment related to nonrecourse. However, he felt that Section 3 of <br />the amendment could be made more clear, and suggested the following revision to the second <br />sentence: EWEB may proceedwith the initial phase of MetroNet and PAN to the extent that <br />EWEB can do so without incurring any future indebtedness. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the resolution by revising <br /> the second sentence to read: E WEB may proceed with the initial phase of <br /> MetroNet and PAN to the extent that EWEB can do so without incurring any <br /> future indebtedness. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked Mr. Klein to define future indebtedness. Mr. Klein defined it as including both <br />short- and long-term borrowing. In regard to the unspent bond proceeds, Mr. Klein agreed with a <br />statement from Ms. Wright that those funds were not future indebtedness, but rather "money in the <br />bank" that did not need to be borrowed; he referred the council to Section 3, which stated that <br />EWEB could move forward with the initial phase of MetroNet using unspent bond proceeds. <br /> <br />Responding to a concern raised by Mr. Rayor about the lack of specificity about the bond in <br />question in the text of the resolution, Mr. Klein offered as a friendly amendment, accepted by Mr. <br />Rayor and Mr. Pap~, to change the phrase in Section 3 reading "above-mentioned existing bond <br />authorization" to the "1998 revenue bond authorization." <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 19, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />