Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner asked what would happen if there was insufficient revenue to support repayment of <br />the bonds. Who backed them? The ratepayers? The City? He said that was not clear in the <br />materials before the council. <br /> <br />Responding to Mr. Fart's questions, Mr. Meisner said he did not think AT&T was likely to provide <br />service to every household in Eugene or line space to its competitors. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted a general concern expressed by what he termed the "computer community" <br />regarding EWEB's ability to construct a system in a timely enough fashion that it was not <br />obsolete before it was in place. He asked EWEB to consider how it would guarantee that it could <br />complete the system in a timely fashion. <br /> <br />EWEB staff indicated that EWEB intended to use project revenue bonds, nonrecourse back to <br />the utility. EWEB would go to the investment community with an investment grade business plan <br />and market analysis and convince the investors the revenues would be sufficient to pay debt <br />service and operating costs. If EWEB could not do so, it could not go forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if AT&T bought TCl to reach all households in Eugene. Mr. Dyer did not know. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if EWEB would continue to participate in the Fiber Optic Group. Mr. Berggren <br />said yes. Mr. Rayor encouraged EWEB's continued participation and cooperation in that effort. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the letter submitted earlier that evening from <br />US West requesting that the City conduct a public hearing on the proposal, Mayor Torrey said <br />that he would advise that course of action. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor favored the EWEB proposal and was unconcerned about the potential provision of <br />content. She said she had been contacted by citizen Orval Etter earlier that day, who also <br />favored the proposal but urged more public involvement. Mr. Etter also indicated to her his belief <br />that EWEB had the authority to proceed without a charter amendment. She asked Mr. Dyer what <br />EWEB would do if it put the issue to a vote and it failed. She disagreed with Mr. Kelly about the <br />need for more specificity in the charter amendment. She compared the charter to a constitution, <br />saying it should contain principles and not specific details. She trusted future boards and voters <br />to do what the citizens wanted. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee commended EWEB for being visionary in its approach to service delivery. He said that <br />gray areas would continue to surface as technology evolved and the law changed. Mr. Lee <br />encouraged EWEB to pursue the charter amendment if board members were confident about the <br />proposal. He believed the issue was one of confidence on the part of the organization since the <br />future was so unclear. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey cautioned EWEB about what it included in the charter amendment. He believed <br />that such amendments were intended to be specific. Mayor Torrey supported a public hearing to <br />provide a history of legislative intent. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to <br /> prepare a resolution for the City Council calling an election in May 2000 on a <br /> charter amendment authorizing EWEB to engage in telecommunications <br /> activities. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />