Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor thought they should oppose the bill. Eric Jones, Public Affairs Manager for the Public Works Department, said staff had decided to change its recommendation from monitoring the bill to a Priority 3 Oppose. Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for the Public Works Department Lee Shoemaker explained that the $54 fee was more than the fee for a motorcycle and would present a big burden to someone purchasing a $100 bicycle. He said a person could have multiple bicycles if they had children and this would exacerbate the expense. He pointed out that bicyclists had a minimal impact on the roadways and that a person who purchased a home also paid for Systems Development Charges (SDCs) that paid for roads. Additionally, there was some concern about the burden this would place on police officers, who would be charged with monitoring whether bicyclists had the appropriate license plates. He asked the committee to consider whether it would be prudent to give bicycles away at Project Homeless Connect and then require homeless people to pay $54 in fees. ted a licensing fee for bicycles. He thought it was a good idea to have some kind of registration on certain kinds of bicycles. Ms. Piercy noted that they wanted to encourage bicycle usage and a licensing requirement could run counter to this. Mr. Jones stated that the bill was not scheduled for a hearing at this time. He noted that it had received a great deal of media attention and some of the response from car owners was that bicyclists should pay. He reiterated his feeling that $54 was too much, however. He added that the cost of the administration of the system was high. The committee agreed to go with the staff recommendation for adoption of a Priority 3 Oppose position. Ms. Ortiz noted that it was not on the agenda. Ms. Wilson stated that the bill had come to the CCIGR on February 11, at which point staff had recommended that the bill be opposed. The committee had unanimously supported the position. She said the bill report had not yet gone before the City Council and any councilor could pull the bill for discus- sion. She related that the City of Portland had taken a neutral position on the bill. She said the Portland bicycle community was very polarized about it. She thought it was dead in the legislature. She noted that State Senator Floyd Prozanski had introduced the bill, as well as a bill that had been roundly opposed by the biking community to require bicycle helmets for all ages. Mr. Poling felt they had only heard from half of the bicycle community. He thought an actual survey of bicycle riders would show similar split results in Eugene. . the position to neutral. Ms. Piercy recalled that at the Bike Summit they had discussed working to move bicyclists to corridors that were less used by motor vehicle traffic. She did not know if the bill provided the opportunity to look at some of those corridors. Mr. Shoemaker stated that staff planned to look at the bicycle corridors, with the update of the TransPlan. MINUTESCouncil Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 1, 2009 Page 8