Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ECC <br />UGENE ITY OUNCIL <br />AIS <br />GENDA TEM UMMARY <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Work Session: An Ordinance Concerning Setting Fees and Charges and Amending <br />Sections 2.020, 2.442, and 6.411 of the Eugene Code <br /> <br /> <br />Meeting Date: May 16, 2007 Agenda Item Number: B <br />Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Mary Walston <br />www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5406 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />ISSUE STATEMENT <br /> <br />This is a work session on a proposed ordinance to revise slightly the directives to the City Manager for <br />setting fees and charges. The Eugene Code assigns administrative rule-making authority to the City <br />Manager (Section 2.019). In the later sections of the code proposed to be modified by the proposed <br />ordinance, the criteria for setting fees and charges are defined. The proposed ordinance would grant <br />the manager some flexibility in how these criteria are applied. <br /> <br /> <br />BACKGROUND <br />The impetus for the proposed revision comes from a recent Oregon Court of Appeals decision that <br />interpreted the Code more strictly than staff believes was intended. In providing directives to the City <br />Manager for setting of fees and charges, the current language in Section 2.020 states: <br />In determining the amount of any such fee, the City Manager shall consider: <br />a) Applicable policies, enactments and directives of the council; <br />b) The amount charged by the city in the past; <br />c) The full costs of providing the service supported by the fee; <br />d) The amounts charged by other comparable providers; and, <br />e) The revenue needs of the city as determined by the adopted city budget. <br /> <br />In 2002, the City Manager issued an administrative order setting fees for utilities’ right-of-way use <br />permits. Comcast subsequently challenged these fees in circuit court, which upheld the fees. Comcast <br />appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which declared that the fees were invalid because the City <br />Manager had not expressly considered “the amounts charged by other comparable providers.” City <br />staff had deemed that step unnecessary, because another provision in the Eugene Code, Section 7.300, <br />expressly requires the fees for these permits to be set “in an amount sufficient to fully recover all of the <br />City’s costs related to [the permit program].” Despite that specific directive in the Code, the Court of <br />Appeals concluded that the right-of-way permit fees were invalid because the mandatory comparison <br />to other “comparable providers” was not completed. <br /> <br />The change to the fee-setting process in the proposed ordinance is narrow. It would allow the City <br />Manager not to consider one or more of the factors listed in EC 2.020 if – but only if – the manager <br />makes written findings that a particular factor is irrelevant or inapplicable. For instance, in setting the <br />fees challenged in the Comcast case, the City Manager could have accompanied the fee order with a <br />written finding that comparing the proposed fees to those charged in other cities was irrelevant in light <br /> L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070516\S070516B.doc <br />