CC Minutes - 02/28/00 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Taylor asked which would offer more protection to consumers: a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or charter amendment. Mr. Klein said that the charter amendment gave the board the authority to decide whether to engage in telecommunications activities subject to the requirement that if it wished to issue bonds it must seek council authority. Without the charter amendment, the council would have more control over whether EWEB entered the telecommunications business. Councilor Taylor asked about the danger of the City being sued; did that change by the nature of the implementing vehicle? Mr. Klein said not significantly. The City could be named in the case of a suit if there was a charter amendment; in the case of an MOU, it was more likely the City would be named as well as a "tag along" defendant. Councilor Taylor asked if EWEB would be able to act more quickly with an MOU. Mr. Klein said yes, since EWEB would not have to wait for a May election to know if it had the desired authority. Councilor Meisner acknowledged EWEB's desire for speed but was concerned that the council was being asked to put the question on the ballot without a feasibility study or business plan. He wanted the proposed system, but had many questions. Councilor Meisner said he wished there had been time for the information he wanted to be provided, and regretted the speed with which EWEB was acting. He felt rushed, and did not feel he was making a fully informed decision, which left him uncomfortable. Councilor Meisner said that the final question could only be resolved by the voters. Any public education campaign was an EWEB responsibility, and he hoped such a campaign occurred. Councilor Kelly believed high-speed telecommunications was fast becoming a utility, and it was vital for public services, public education, and the economic future of the community. He said that if there was true competition as was suggested by those in the industry offering testimony, he would have his choice of more than one provider and the discussion the council was having might be different. Councilor Kelly did not have that choice, and he welcomed the addition of EWEB to the market if the playing field was level. Councilor Kelly noted his previous concern about moving forward without all the details of the business plan, but he was persuaded by the action the board took on February 15 ensuring a second public vote before any bonds were issued. He noted that EWEB had an elected board, and he trusted the board to know what it needed to do. He believed if EWEB did anything but what it stated, the board would be in trouble. Councilor Rayor noted his concurrence with the remarks of Councilor Kelly. He said that the City had placed the same constraints on EWEB that were on any other provider, had incorporated protections for the rate payer, and attempted to level the playing field. He felt the council had done what it could. Councilor Lee thanked the representatives of industry for their testimony before the council and said their concerns were real. He thought there was a legitimate argument regarding fairness and influence made by those representatives. He said the council needed to make a decision, and for the record he wanted to ask Mr. Berggren why EWEB was going to the public with the issue. Mr. Berggren responded that EWEB believed it needed full charter authority to be able to negotiate with business partners and develop a business plan it could take to the financial community. He believed EWEB needed a public vote. Councilor Lee said it appeared there was disagreement between legal counsel for the two bodies. Mr. Berggren concurred. He said that EWEB and the City's legal counsels disagreed on the course of action that was needed, and which path provided the most legal assurance for EWEB. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 17 Regular Meeting