Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr asked if EWEB had heard any testimony from AT&T regarding the proposal. Mr. Dyer <br />said no. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said that he shared the concerns expressed by others regarding the potential of EWEB <br />as a content provider. He was sorry that the City Council had not had time to form a charter <br />review committee to examine what EWEB was permitted to do, and "what we want it to do" in the <br />future. He regretted that review had not occurred prior to the proposal being submitted to the <br />council. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if the system contemplated by EWEB could be installed by the private sector. <br />Mr. Dyer said yes. Mr. Pap8 asked when private companies would be likely to be attracted to the <br />Eugene-Springfield market. Mr. Dyer said that "no one was knocking on the door." Private <br />companies were operating in large urban centers with dense populations where they could <br />optimize the revenue per mile of system. Mr. Pap8 suggested that over time, like cellular <br />telephone service, smaller communities would receive service. Mr. Dyer said it was possible, but <br />installing such a system was a huge investment totaling $70 to $80 million, and he did not see it <br />happening in the near future. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said that if EWEB could provide a service the citizens needed that would not be <br />provided by the private sector, he could support the proposal. He asked if EWEB would consider <br />selling the system to the private sector at some future point. Mr. Dyer responded that he did not <br />think the current board would sell the system, as one of the underpinnings of the project was <br />public ownership. Mr. Berggren added he assumed any decision to sell would be referred to the <br />public. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked how a future board could be bound to a promise of noncompetition in the <br />provision of content. Mr. Dyer said that no one could bind the actions of a future board, but he <br />believed the campaign for the charter amendment would be clear as to the board's intent, and he <br />would consider it a breach of the public trust if EWEB acted otherwise. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Klein confirmed that the City could extend the <br />requested authority through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) without the need for a <br />charter amendment. He said that EWEB's legal counsel believed including the authority in the <br />charter would provide a greater defense for EWEB's construction of the system. He disagreed, <br />but acknowledged that the issues involved had not been litigated. Mr. Beeson added that EWEB <br />believed it would be more difficult, from a business perspective, to work with a development <br />partner to put together the most effective structure with an MOU approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the proposal as consistent with the City's telecommunications policies. <br />He wanted the kind of universal access a public system would provide. However, he shared Mr. <br />Kelly's concerns about the provision of content. He said EWEB was asking for a charter <br />amendment so broad that it "very clearly does" authorize the provision of content. Mr. Meisner <br />referred to the report prepared by EWEB entitled The Telecommunications Question and said <br />that while it stated decisions to provide content would not be undertaken without intense <br />community involvement and discussion, it did not state a vote would be taken. He said that <br />EWEB should be clear that it was requesting the authority to provide content. Mr. Meisner said <br />he was disturbed that "level of honesty" was not present in the materials prepared by EWEB. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />