CC Minutes - 05/23/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment. Ms. Taylor commented that she would support the main motion and not the amendment. The motion to amend failed, 5:3; Mr. Clark, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Pryor voting in favor. The main motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Clark and Mr. Poling voting in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to establish a street utility fee based on parking spaces to generate annual net revenue of approximately $6 million, with $150,000 per year dedicated to funding traffic calming measures (estimated to cost the average household $4.50 to $5 per month). Ms. Taylor asked how the fees would be assessed and collected and how much it would cost to collect them. Mr. Corey reiterated that no work had been done on the methodology. He said this was a concept at this point that had come from the subcommittee. Ms. Taylor moved to delete the residential component from the motion. The motion died for lack of a second. Ms. Bettman said she had opposed the original TSMF but she was willing to support this item because she felt it combined sustainability issues with the nexus of the charge. She believed that parking equaled use of the system. She related that the subcommittee’s assumption was that the options would be brought back to the council for further consideration and determination of what the phasing would be and what the actual ordinance would look like. Mr. Zelenka did not agree that it was a parking tax; rather, it was a street utility fee. He said it was an attempt to get people to pay because of their use of the streets. He averred that the TSMF had died from “its own weight” because it was too complicated. He stated that the subcommittee considered numerous mechanisms to capture money from the use of streets and this model had proven to be the best one for the city. Ms. Solomon noted that two other municipalities use this model. She believed that the City could work from their models to develop its own. Mr. Poling affirmed that passing the motion merely moved it forward for further discussion. He questioned how a person who lived on a corner would be assessed given that he or she would have “two front yards.” Mr. Pryor said the utility fee was attractive to him because the City could charge the tax to everyone. He noted that he did not envision charging people for street frontage and curbs. Mr. Zelenka commented that there were 19 cities in Oregon that used some kind of utility fee; the City of Eugene would not be “reinventing the wheel.” He agreed with Mr. Pryor that the fee should be simple to administer, but he underscored that at this time the council was voting on the concept and not the details. Mr. Poling said he would support the item for discussion purposes only. He requested that the Mayor consider postponing the joint meeting with the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) scheduled for May MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 23, 2007 Page 6 Work Session