Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/25/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room-777 Pearl Street, Eugene City Hall June 25, 2001 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Pat Farr. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Johnson that a memorandum regarding the City's efforts to buy locally would be forthcoming. Ms. Nathanson reported she had attended the last meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens (ABC), which was well-attended and featured an interesting discussion on growth. She thanked the ABC for inviting her. Ms. Nathanson called attention to an article regarding pedestrian lights embedded in the street at street level, and asked it be passed on to Transportation staff. For the benefit of councilors who did not attend, Ms. Nathanson said that during the West Eugene Transportation Charette she raised the concept of a defined portal or entrance coming from the west into Eugene. She suggested that, through road design, the portal could be created, and nonlocal traffic diverted off West 11th Avenue. Mr. Meisner noted five councilors attended the recent Oregon Liveability Conference. He asked staff to pass on his thanks to Nan Laurence of the Planning and Development Department for her assistance in organizing a design/review workshop he moderated. Mr. Meisner requested a report on the status of the East Bank Bicycle Path. Ms. Bettman had no items. Mr. Rayor said he had used Amazon Pool the first night it was open, and expressed appreciation for the architecture, which mirrored elements of the airport and the new library. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Rayor referred to the transportation charette and noted disagreements about how streets in west Eugene should work. He endorsed Ms. Nathanson's concept of a portal. Mr. Rayor said a constituent requested that traffic calming be considered at 43rd Avenue between Donald and Willamette streets. Ms. Taylor said that on behalf of Mayor Torrey, she had welcomed the Peace Runners to Eugene. She had enjoyed the event. Ms. Taylor reported that she had heard complaints about Animal Control staff "sneaking up on people" and questioned why the City was going after dogs that were accompanied by people rather than dogs that were on the loose. Mr. Johnson reported that he and Chief Tom Tallon would make a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners asking the board to deny the Lane Rural Fire District proposal for an Ambulance Service Area. Mr. Pap8 had no items. B. Work Session: TechLogic System for New Main Library Jackie Griffin, Library, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department, joined the council and provided background on the proposed purchase of a new automated book return system using existing library capital funds and urban renewal funds. She described how such the new system would operate and noted the savings in labor and book damage costs, as well as the system's ability to return books to the shelf more quickly. Mr. Meisner noted Ms. Griffin's work as acting library director and said that she would soon be leaving the City's employment to be the new librarian at the public library in Berkeley, California. He endorsed the purchase proposed enthusiastically and said it would eliminate hours of labor and realize operational savings. He further noted that the proposed funding could only be used for library purposes. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Griffin that the system's conveyor belt held approximately 4,000 books and would be informed by a software system when the bins were full. Multi-bins would adequately handle the amount of books returned when the library was closed. Mr. Kelly said the system appeared to be working well in other places. He determined from Ms. Griffin that no significant impact would result from using the funds allocated since the majority of the capital funds were intended initially to pay for a new book drop in the current building. Mr. Kelly also determined from Ms. Griffin that the purchase would not result in the elimination of positions. Mr. Pap~ asked if the labor savings from the purchase was sufficient to pay for it over time. Ms. Griffin said that staff knew there was a correlation between circulation and staff, and there was no economy of scale to be realized in shelving books. If the library circulated 30 percent more items, MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 2 Work Session it would need 30 percent more shelvers. Staff was not sure what the circulation increase at the new library would be, but had done estimates at various levels of cost savings at different percentage circulation increases that could be provided to the council if requested. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to purchase an automated book return system using existing library capital funds and $675,000 in Urban Renewal Agency funds, and to include the cost and funding on Supplemental Budget #1 in December 2001. Mr. Johnson said that once the urban renewal district expired, the funding would lose its status as urban renewal money, and a future council could redirect those dollars to other purposes. This action reduced the dollars available to a future council in 2010. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. C. Work Session: TransPlan The council was joined by Planning Director Jan Childs. Ms. Childs reviewed the attachments in the meeting packet, noting the inclusion of the finance policy previously adopted by the City Council and Attachment A, which discussed differential nodal development infrastructure costs. Ms. Bettman had suggested a definition be added to the glossary; Ms. Childs distributed copies of a potential motion calling for such a definition as a starting point for discussion. Ms. Childs said the subject of the work session was two Eugene- specific amendments to TransPlan. The Metropolitan Policy Committee did not agree with general application of the amendments suggested by the Eugene council (Attachment B), but did not object if the council adopted such amendments specific to Eugene. She called attention to a summary of the two amendments on page 17 of the meeting packet. Attachment C listed the Royal Node infrastructure projects; Attachment D was a memorandum to the council from Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments entitled Confirming Achievement of Alternative Performance Measures. Ms. Nathanson determined from Ms. Childs that the suggested amendment text related to operations, maintenance, and preservation (OM&P) funding bound the council to adopt a revenue source to address the funding shortfall. Ms. Childs suggested that, even if such a revenue measure was defeated at the polls or overturned by the courts, the council's obligation would be satisfied by the fact it adopted it. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Childs said the other TransPlan partners declined to adopt an amendment regarding OM&P similar to the one before the council. Springfield adopted the first sentence in the proposed amendment: Increase revenues through a locally controlled source of revenue equitably tied to all users of the transportation system that would provide revenues to address OM&P needs. The MPC agreed that the individual jurisdictions could adopt MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 3 Work Session individual amendments. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap6, Ms. Childs could not guarantee the list of possible revenue sources included in the amendment was all-inclusive, noting it was developed by the Budget Citizen Subcommittee. Ms. Bettman said the list of revenue sources excluded other potential revenues, citing "congestion pricing" and "vehicle miles traveled" charges as examples. She did not want to exclude any possibilities. Ms. Childs suggested the last sentence in the text preceding the list be revised as follows: The Eugene City Council shall adopt a revenue source, including but not limited to, one of the following... Mr. Kelly explained the intent of the amendment was to ensure that the council looked at existing revenue sources with the possibility of redirecting them from new capital projects to OM&P. He noted the complication in determining the amount of Surface Transportation Program funds available to Eugene because the other jurisdictions were not adopting similar text and there was no firm amount available to redirect. He said that he discussed the situation with Ms. Bettman, who had suggested policy language to address it. Mr. Rayor noted the hierarchy of priorities in the policy related to operations, maintenance, and preservation previously adopted by the council and questioned the relationship of that policy to the proposed text. He preferred the phrase "shall consider" over "shall adopt." Mr. Meisner was supportive of both the proposed amendments. With regard to Mr. Rayor's comment, he was not troubled by the phrase "shall adopt," pointing out that almost any taxing mechanism the council adopted could be referred to the voters. Ms. Nathanson asked if Eugene's participation in a metropolitan-wide gasoline tax would satisfy the intent of phrase "shall adopt," or if the council must adopt another revenue source. Mr. Carlson thought participation in such a tax would satisfy the text. Mr. Pap~ questioned whether the council was establishing a goal regarding OM&P that it could not meet. He noted that many local streets need to be upgraded, and sometimes neighbors did not support those improvements; he asked if the additional funding would be used to ensure such streets from falling no further behind in its condition of repair, and what impact that would have on the City's street assessment policies. Mr. Pap~ feared that the council could be limiting its options, particularly if the voters would not support a new tax. In response to Mr. Papa's comments, Mr. Kelly suggested his concerns related to local street improvements could be addressed by changing "roadway" to "improved roadway" in recognition of the fact the streets in question were not improved to City standards and could continue to fall behind. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly reminded the council of the policy it previously adopted regarding OM&P, and emphasized the need for mandatory language to ensure that commitment was met. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's remarks, Mr. Kelly did not think a metropolitan gasoline tax was ruled out by the proposed text. He pointed out, however, that a one percent gasoline tax only realized about 20 percent of what was needed, and another revenue source would be needed. Mr. Meisner noted the exceptions to the hierarchy of priorities in the policy previously adopted by the council and questioned how that policy worked with the proposed text, which was mandatory. Ms. Childs pointed out that the amendment in question was specific to OM&P. Mr. Rayor felt that the council would have to educate the public regarding the need for a new revenue source. He continued to prefer a more discretionary approach to the council's adoption of a new revenue source as he believed TransPlan represented a set of guidelines in most cases rather than a "set of absolutes." He thought the work of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee regarding transportation funding needed to be publicized more fully. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the amendment to the May 1999 draft TransPlan related to OM&P funding as described in Attachment A. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the motion by revising the text to read: The Eugene City Council should adopt at least one, including but not limited to, of the following revenue sources... Ms. Taylor opposed the use of the word "should," saying it was not adequate. Mr. Meisner agreed. He suggested the amendment to TransPlan should recognize the issue of need as well. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the amendment to the motion as follows: "As needed to maintain system condition, the Eugene City Council shall adopt at least one, including but not limited to,..." Ms. Nathanson suggested as a friendly amendment the following text: ':.., at least one revenue source, such as the following..." ." Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner accepted the friendly amendment, so the text read: ''As needed to maintain system condition, the Eugene City Council shall adopt at least one revenue source, such as..., Mr. Rayor did not know what it would take to stabilize conditions or make progress in meeting the OM&P backlog on an annual basis. He wanted to support the hierarchy of need previously MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 5 Work Session identified, which could be done with available discretionary funds, and did not want to limit the City to stabilizing conditions. For that reason, he did not want to be so specific. Mr. Pap~ thought the OM&P backlog a "moving target" and did not want to tie the council's hands. He requested staff comment. David Reinhard of the Public Works Department agreed that the target was to some degree a moving target. He said that there was also the potential issue of adding to the maintenance backlog by the fact some revenue sources were available only for expansion or new projects, and those facilities over time will need maintenance. He agreed, in response to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, that the issue of a disaster was something to contemplate. Mr. Pap~ indicated reluctance to lock the council into the approach suggested in the motion. Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs confirmed that TransPlan policies had the force of law. The planning and program actions in Chapter 3 did not have the same status in law as the policies; the motion was a statement of the council's intentions, outside those adopted policies. Mayor Torrey asked if the motion precluded the City from using its discretionary funding as a match for a State capacity enhancement project or new State capital project. Mr. Reinhard did not think the motion precluded such an action. Ms. Bettman disagreed with Mr. Reinhard's statement, saying that capacity enhancement or increased capacity were intended to be paid for through systems development charges and other funding sources. She said that part of the funding problem was that the City continued to be tied to increased capacity and modernization projects because that was what it had the money for, while its existing investment in the infrastructure deteriorated from a lack of maintenance. Ms. Childs said that the motion stated that if the City adopted and implemented a locally controlled source of revenue, it would first be directed to OM&P. She clarified that the motion was specific to a revenue yet to-be-adopted, not all potential funding sources. Mr. Reinhard concurred. Mr. Kelly emphasized the importance of the amendment to his vote on TransPlan, saying the majority of the council had stressed the need for maintaining the existing system. Ms. Bettman asked if the adoption of a motor vehicle excise tax sufficient to ensure the system did not fall behind in terms of condition of repair would allow the tax to be raised to a higher level and the balance used for new construction. Ms. Childs believed the motion was specific to OM&P and it would require another motion or an amendment to include the funding for new capacity. Ms. Bettman said that was good. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly confirmed that the motion included the phrase "improved roadways." MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 6 Work Session The vote on the amendment to the amendment was 6:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. The vote on the amended motion was 6:1; Mr. Pap~ voting no. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to include an amendment to TransPlan, Chapter 2, to include the finance policy specific to Eugene that was previously adopted by the Eugene City Council. Mayor Torrey was concerned about eliminating needed tools and the potential that needed facilities with a positive impact on the transportation system would be precluded by the motion. Ms. Childs suggested that the word "justification" be substituted for the word "findings" in the section entitled Policy Definition/Intent in the above-referenced policy. Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly accepted the suggestion as a friendly amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to approve the amendment to the May 1999 draft TransPlan related to nodal development infrastructure funding as described in Attachment A. Mr. Kelly asked that the text references in TransPlan to accepting a lower pavement condition needed to be footnoted as not applying to Eugene. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion to include in the glossary of TransPlan a definition of differential nodal development infrastructure costs as drafted by staff. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 7:0. The main motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Rayor requested that staff develop a press release regarding the report of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee related to the current condition of the roads and the budget shortfall. D.Work Session: Eugene Water & Electric Board Telecommunications Project Business Plan Pam Berrian of the Information Services Division introduced the item, saying she worked with Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) staff to bring the issue to the council. She noted an error in the staff notes, which stated a draft resolution would be presented at the meeting; Ms. Berrian clarified that the work session was to seek direction on policy issues, and should the council direct a joint resolution be prepared, staff would do so in July 2001. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 7 Work Session The council was also joined for the item by EWEB Commissioner Peter Bartel, EWEB General Manger Randy Berggren, Project Manager Debra Wright, and consultant Dale Smith. Mr. Bartel reported that the draft Telecommunications Plan for MetroNet Service was the culmination of 14 months of work that followed the voters' approval of a charter resolution authorizing EWEB to provide telecommunications capability and service. EWEB had been gathering data, doing market surveys, and developing a business pro forma for a universal build-out. He commended the staff assisting the effort. Mr. Bartel said the report in The Register-Guard that EWEB would not pursue telecommunications was inaccurate; however, EWEB had decided against a universal build- out in the first three years, and would instead stage that effort by constructing MetroNet. He said that EWEB commissioners believed the plan was consistent with adopted development objectives: 1) that the system be or provide for an economically viable system, 2) that it support EWEB's core energy and water business; 3) that it is publicly owned and managed; 4) that it provide universal service; 5) that it will have advanced telecommunications capability; 6) that it will have capacity to provide for multiple providers; 7) that it will have capacity for utility applications; and 8) that it will have minimal construction impacts. Mr. Bartel called attention to the joint resolution of March 2, 2000, and suggested it be modified to allow EWEB to fund MetroNet's construction and implementation. Ms. Wright provided the council with a presentation regarding the status ofEWEB's MetroNet Project. Mr. Berggren reported that, since the scheduling of the build-out would be influenced by the direct service providers, the schedule for build-out was not firm at this time. He asked the council to direct City staff to prepare a joint resolution for its consideration, and for that resolution to allow EWEB to use the funding for which it had already received authorization and to give it the ability to negotiate short-term financing without a community vote, with the option of using the electric utility for credit. He anticipated the most that would be at risk beyond the authorized funding was $1.2 million. Ms. Wright anticipated that under the short-term debt scenario, the revenue generated by the MetroNet system would begin to support the universal build-out in year six. Ms. Wright reviewed next steps in the process, which included a public hearing followed by action by the board. She hoped the council would receive a draft of the joint resolution in July, with detailed design work to begin in August. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments and questions. Mr. Meisner said that the EWEB recommendation for no public vote bypassed Section 4 of the March 2000 joint resolution, which stated that EWEB shall not incur future indebtedness for MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 8 Work Session telecommunications activities without obtaining both council and voter approval. He asked why that point was so important previously, and why it was being overridden. Mr. Berggren clarified it was not EWEB's intent to bypass the resolution. He reminded the council that the context for the first resolution was EWEB's interest in pursuing an immediate, universal build-out. That required $100 million and additional bonding authority; EWEB had existing authority under its existing Phase 1 authorization that was sufficient to meet the cash flow needs of the MetroNet project. EWEB would not need to go out for the $100 million in additional debt until the universal build out occurred. EWEB was now acknowledging that if the electric utility provided a rate pledge above the $15 million existing debt, the maximum risk was about one percent per month for rate payers. Mr. Berggren said the spirit of the proposal was not to avoid voter approval of universal build-out. EWEB did not see the value of going to the voters at this time given the existing borrowing authority. Mr. Meisner thought EWEB's proposed approach put the council in an awkward position, given its previous agreement to go to the voters. The council would be put in the position of voting on a resolution authorizing EWEB not to go to the voters. Mr. Berggren pointed out that the board would have to vote in support of a new joint resolution as well. Ms. Wright said that what made the model smart was that it was incremental in nature, and it used service providers who were aware of their markets. That made it hard to get a vote on. It was not a product that would initially touch a lot of people, although it would touch their interests. She suggested it would make it difficult to educate the voters of the benefit. Mr. Meisner left the meeting room. With regard to Mr. Meisner's remarks, Ms. Nathanson suggested the difference was a matter of scale. The project was a smaller portion of a larger amount of bonded indebtedness and was not planned indebtedness, but rather a "pay-as-you-go approach," and a potential risk factor. She suggested it was unlikely the entire $1.2 million would be at risk, but more likely a portion of that. Mr. Berggren concurred, saying it would be whatever the revenue shortfall was in any given year. Ms. Nathanson emphasized the importance of the official statement by the American Public Power Association on page 37 of the packet. Referring to page 40, Ms. Nathanson asked that EWEB consider a term other than "data center." Also on the same page, Ms. Nathanson said that the reference to "provides value and services largely unavailable in this market," was not to direct consumer services, but to the provision of a service related to how technology was delivered. She thought the use of the word "services" somewhat misleading. Ms. Wright concurred, saying that the focus was on local area network-type services on a metropolitan area scale. Mr. Kelly asked when EWEB would start selling bandwidth to private internet service providers (ISPs) and other customers and when the four geographic regions would be ready to serve. Ms. Wright anticipated that EWEB would work with the service providers in the detailed design phase MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 9 Work Session to determine the best order of service. She said that the plan was to begin to provide services by the first quarter of fiscal year 2002. The four geographic areas would be served by mid-summer 2002. Mr. Smith confirmed a statement by Mr. Kelly that by September 2002 the full MetroNet backbone would be "up and running." Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the service boundaries in downtown Eugene and if that included the University of Oregon and PeaceHealth, Ms. Wright said that had not been determined. At this point, the utility was least certain about the downtown area because of uncertainty about the facility that would be used. The Aster project seemed to be on hold, and EWEB was open to other possibilities. She said that EWEB had talked to PeaceHealth about serving it, regardless of its location. Mr. Smith added that a large part of the design work would be as a result of conversations with service providers; if the service providers believed that one area had a priority over another, EWEB would be influenced by the customer base of the providers. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the need to serve customers where they were, but wanted EWEB to recognize that where it laid fiber would determine some business locations. He said that he would object if businesses downtown were not served. Ms. Wright stressed that EWEB was very committed to downtown and had spoken to many potential users downtown. The issue was where to build within the March-September window. Mr. Kelly requested a follow-up memorandum regarding whether the September 2002 target included service to downtown. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's comments, Mr. Bartel said that the EWEB commissioners had the same discussion. He said the issue affecting the delivery of service was density; he suggested that a lot of the project's success depended on the council's commitment to density, to making nodal development occur in a reasonable way, and to downtown. He said that there was no question in his mind that if those commitments were realized, EWEB would be ready to serve downtown. Ms. Bettman was in total agreement with the remarks of Mr. Kelly. She said that private investments would follow the service, and TransPlan represented a commitment to increased employment densities in the designated nodes. If the service did not reach those nodes but served areas outside the nodes, that was where the development would occur, which was inconsistent with adopted City policies and TransPlan. Ms. Bettman emphasized the public nature of the service, and said it should have a public benefit. In the absence of universal service, she questioned its public benefit and whether it should be provided privately. She did not consider it an essential service. Regarding universal service, Ms. Bettman asked if the bond measure for the universal service would be for $100 million. Ms. Wright said yes. Ms. Bettman asked what happened if the voters voted the bond measure down, and all that was left was the component under consideration now. She did not think it would meet the definition of a public utility because it provided service only to certain geographic areas. Ms. Bettman supported the initial wording in the resolution of March 2000. She could only consider a change in the resolution if it addressed that issue. She suggested it could be addressed by holding a vote now. As EWEB moved forward with its MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 10 Work Session incremental plan, it would have certainty that the full funding would be in place for implementation of the entire plan. Mr. Pap~ asked the EWEB representatives "what's the rush?" Ms. Wright attributed it to the existing market and the fact people were excited about the project. She added that many businesses consider the service to be vital and necessary public infrastructure. They struggle now to get what they need and are excited about getting the service from EWEB. She said the rush was to take advantage of some of the momentum around the project. Mr. Pap~ said that last year he felt that EWEB was pushing the council to go someplace it did not really want to go. He thought the business plan should have been fully developed for presentation to the council. Citing PeaceHealth, he said he assumed that the hospital could get the kind of provider it needed to do what it did on the Internet today. Mr. Bartel disagreed. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was a private sector provider who could provide services to PeaceHealth. Ms. Wright said that there were traditional services that have the ability to mimic what EWEB would provide, but their availability was limited, and the Eugene market was not attracting the needed capital investment or infrastructure improvements. Currently the cost for such services was prohibitively expensive. EWEB's services would be significantly less expensive. Responding to a comment from Mr. Pap~ that he had not seen a marketing report showing support for the proposal, Ms. Wright said she would provide Mr. Pap~ with the full business plan, which included details about market surveys performed by EWEB. EWEB had talked to both end users and service providers, and the service providers had given EWEB some very specific figures about their customer needs and what they would pay EWEB for service. Ms. Wright noted that the full business plan had been placed in the council office. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the proposed method of financing, Ms. Wright said that EWEB was acknowledging that markets had changed. The telecommunications market had tightened and funding was more difficult and expensive to access. EWEB would like to have the flexibility in financing if it needed it, but hoped to find financing that was completely separate. Mr. Rayor said that EWEB could do what it wanted if it had the electric utility as a recourse, but the question to him was whether the plan stood alone. He wanted to keep Section 3 of the existing resolution intact until adoption of the next resolution. He thought the voters could understand the finance question for the lesser $2.5 million amount. Mayor Torrey asked if anyone else in the community could provide the service EWEB proposed to provide. Mr. Smith said no one was proposing to provide such a universal system. Mayor Torrey asked if private companies had attended the stakeholders' meetings to express concern. Mr. Bartel said the utility was challenged to make its case during meetings of the Telecommunications Technical Group, but in the end people appeared to believe the service was a valuable thing to have because it was currently not available. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 11 Work Session Mayor Torrey asked EWEB representatives if the utility would be prepared to sell its position to an outside entity if the service proved viable. Mr. Bartel said no. It would be a publicly owned and operated system. He noted that the EWEB commissioners were elected and things can change; what was policy today was yesterday's "interesting item." However, the board was committed to providing the community with universal access. Ms. Taylor asked what "ordinary" people gained from the first phase of the project. Ms. Wright said that they might work in places where they gained from the high-speed access provided through the system. They may be business owners who were able to grow their businesses using the service. She hoped that the first phase would also serve some residents, such as the higher density residential areas near downtown. Ms. Taylor asked if it was EWEB's intent to modify its plan to provide service to PeaceHealth sooner at its Crescent site if it moved. Ms. Wright said no. Ms. Nathanson said she worked hard at the national level to preserve the municipal authority to do just what EWEB wanted to do. She spoke of the digital divide, saying that Eugene was not a high-tech community in that existing local businesses would not remain competitive without broadband access. Citizens who want to telecommute or start home occupations would not be able to do so if Eugene remained a "backwater" community. Ms. Nathanson said the community did not have the telecommunications highway needed. She supported the proposed resolution. She saw a public benefit from MetroNet and supported it as a first step to universal access. She noted that the citizen involvement group, of which she was a member, had discussed the need for competition, which did not currently exist. If Eugene did not provide the service to itself, it would not get it from the private sector, as small- and medium-sized cities were often bypassed by large providers. Mr. Kelly said that the public benefit of MetroNet was confirmed by those he spoke to about the proposal. They thought it was a good idea particularly ifEWEB could deliver the service on schedule. The services to be provided were either not available or were available from a single provider at a high cost if the circumstances were just right. He thought the system would bring competition into the market. He pointed out that in Ashland, cable rates had dropped when the City became a provider. He also agreed it was an economic development strategy for companies to grow in Eugene rather than relocate to find the service. Mr. Kelly said in terms of the resolution, he needed a timeline for the provision of universal service, and a statement of current intent regarding build-out in year six. He said that it was not acceptable to him for EWEB not to build in downtown. Ms. Wright assured the council that EWEB intended to serve the downtown if it built at all. Mr. Smith agreed, adding that EWEB was committed to serving downtown and the financial plan included a downtown node and a significant amount of fiber was proposed to be installed in downtown. He said that one issue that must be addressed was the parameters of downtown. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 12 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought the project would provide a benefit to certain business areas that were preselected without taking into account the City's other objectives. She thought that fact took it out of the public realm and made the project more of a commercial enterprise. She thought if the community was really committed to developing nodes, EWEB would look at where the nodes are and provide the service in those areas, which were intended to have the densest concentrations of employment. Ms. Bettman said that EWEB made its decision on the basis of the market, but that was not necessarily where the infrastructure was needed for development that was consistent with the City's Growth Management Study policies. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Wright that the utility's public involvement effort was not tied to the initial resolution passed by the council and EWEB commissioners. Mr. Bartel clarified that the voters voted on the charter amendment only, and whether EWEB could have the authority to provide telecommunications services. Ms. Bettman averred that the background to that was the resolution adopted, which provided certain protections. Mr. Bartel termed the resolution "very deep background." Ms. Bettman thought the protections were well thought-out. Mr. Meisner returned to the meeting room. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Wright that EWEB was proposing the potential of using the electric utility to back the business plan. EWEB was not proposing to use the electric utility to fund the project start-up or its continuing operations. Ms. Bettman said that the ratepayers would end up paying the costs of the project if it did not succeed, and that was an issue for her. She thought the plan should be able to stand on its own. Mayor Torrey asked if any councilor objected to EWEB returning with a joint resolution for the council to consider. There was no opposition. Mr. Pap~ called for a firewall between the utility and the project. Ms. Nathanson suggested that City staff consult with EWEB regarding possible changes to the resolution, including that EWEB would consult with Eugene regarding potential identified nodes and growth management polices in terms of the system design and location, and the role EWEB would have in terms of oversight over service delivery and pricing. The meeting adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 13 Work Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 25, 2001 Page 14 Work Session