New Search
EWEB for the territory. According to info from Dick Varner (EWEB), that threat is <br /> moving up the spectrum from a "possible" threat to a "possible, if not likely" issue. This <br /> potential loss translates to about $1 million per year to the City. At some point, we might <br /> want to bring it up with MartylRandy and see what, if anything, the City can do to assist in <br /> and influence that negotiation. <br /> ~ Potential Cogeneration Facility at Hynix - EWEB is predicting that, depending on their <br /> on-going financial viablity, Hynix may build a cogeneration facility on their site, resulting <br /> in an estimated loss of $240,000 in CII,T. If this contingency were to become more likely, <br /> we would need to work with EWEB to understand the nature of cogeneration, how/if it <br /> makes use of City ROW, and the potential for the City to achieve some sort of revenue <br /> replacement (franchise fees?) related to the generation/delivery of that energy. <br /> ¦ - <br /> ¦ ~'~tential Charges tc~ ~e~tions 4~ and X15 ~1F the Eug~u~ ~~ty ~'lr~~ter <br /> As part ~f the itiz~en Charter Review Cmrnnuttee, prooess the Comrn~ttee soh~ite~i <br /> si~ggestzans frnm EW~B, for pot~ntlal charter changes Of tie three issues ita~.sed 6y tl <br /> $caard, tk~e`c~n~:they indxc~at~edastghest priority iuas in the ~r~~b~~"~B's<at~thxoxty~a~ <br /> ~n~age to sli~rt-term borrctvving ~xty and EW~~ st~ffwor~~d to dev~lvp alt~tdt st:::::. <br /> ~e~on~men€lation fc~r a charter change related td this issue CQUncfl heard fat:'>~t~opc~sal at <br /> . <br /> a: ~l~t::E~l3--fit ~auncil neet~ri crn Febnza, _ ~5~f~~?Ytut did ncrt ta1~e:~~tiz~ri:ori:~h~* <br /> y g.. <br /> r~coznmendation at that tame Stavv~ll r~cc~in~nentl ax ~hart~r rovxew work ~esszp~~ ; <br /> 1VIay that. this proposed. chaer:ei~~age b~ presented' t~:tla~:~z~ters:~~rpp..pual: ~:~:;tti~.s~a <br /> Ci 77 ....:~:::::::::i <br /> trrr~e the' housekeeping changed `~pr~sented Qn ~e ballat <br /> <br /> ¦ Exploration of the Idea of Potentially Collecting CILT on the Water Operation <br /> ,r Why does the Water Utility not pay CILT to the City like the Electric (and Steam) <br /> operations do? Recent large water projects resulted in significant disruptions of City <br /> streets and consuming a lot of City staff resources has raised the question as to how the <br /> City recoups costs and is compensated for use of the ROW by EWEB's water operation. <br /> Although Section 44(4) of the 1971 Charter seems to presume that the water utility could <br /> pay CILT on their gross revenues, the City has apparently never signed a MOU with <br /> EWEB on this issue. Analysis staff has explored the pros and cons of charging a water <br /> CILT and attempted: to understand the history as to why one utility bays CILT but.:the.. <br /> other does not. This poterzt~al rev~u~e~iaurc~e was discussed by CQUnc~l on October ~a:,. <br /> ~Ol , ~s part. of a broader v~ork se~sY~x~ discussY~r~>r~~p~~~,alti~rna~~~ n~~, ~rc~p~r <br /> tai general revenue saur~es, but nQ direction was given to staff tq pursue this issue <br /> Page -6- <br /> <br />