Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson believed that the only way the community could realize reliable universal access <br />to the Information Highway was through a public utility. She said that private providers could <br />provide access, but without a regulatory mechanism the City could not force a provider to serve <br />every household and business in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson noted that a City Council goal called <br />for community access to the full range of telecommunication services at reasonable rates. She <br />did not want to see neighborhoods bypassed, because access to the Information Highway would <br />help residents with education, employment, health care, and daily life. Ms. Nathanson supported <br />the motion. She said that if the community wanted choices and competitive pricing, and if the <br />council believed some competition was better than no competition, wanted access for all <br />neighborhoods, and wanted to avoid bundling of services that priced people out of service and <br />limited choices, it should support EWEB. She said the proposal did not exclude anyone from the <br />market. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson's statements and said that the open access model being <br />proposed by EWEB was unlikely to be duplicated by a private provider. However, the private <br />provider could take advantage of the existing infrastructure to provide services to residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he would like to see EWEB's legal counsel work with Mr. Klein on language that <br />addressed the issue of content versus transport. He said that the issue may determine his stand <br />on the charter amendment. Mr. Meisner concurred. He said he would support the motion, but he <br />would not be able to vote to place the charter amendment on the ballot unless the text was <br />revised. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the election would be the "ultimate public hearing" for the charter <br />amendment. He supported a public information campaign by EWEB. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion by calling for a <br /> public hearing on February 14, 2000. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee termed the public hearing a due diligence issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor supported the motion and amendment, and asked that EWEB be provided with a copy <br />of the letter sent by US West. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor favored the motion but wanted a hearing to include the possibility of an approach <br />other than a charter amendment. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he hoped that at the public hearing EWEB could address the question of potential <br />conflict of interest and potential legal challenges raised by US West in its letter. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to direct that the City Manager bring <br /> back a method to implement the proposal without a charter amendment. <br /> <br />The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br /> The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br />The council took a five-minute recess. The council reconvened and sang "Happy Birthday" to <br />City Manager Jim Johnson. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />