Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Taylor, believed that most residential properties would typically be considered to have two parking spaces and that any special dispensations to be given to residences with more or less than two parking spaces had yet to be determined. Ms. Taylor averred that a vehicle registration fee would be less taxing on the public than a street utility fee and that the City had not worked diligently enough to explore the use of a vehicle registration fee. She believed that effective communications with Lane County government representatives as well as representa- tives from other city leaders within the County might make passage of a local vehicle registration fee possible. Ms. Taylor believed that using EWEB’s billing system to collect the street utility fee would not be effective. Mr. Pryor stated that the street utility fee represented a very important revenue-generating opportunity but believed that it would only be so if it was executed responsibly and in partnership with the rest of the community including local businesses and municipalities. Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding specific rates and the number of parking spaces to be applied to the street utility fee would be premature without further consultation with various community representatives. Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding prioritizations of the general fund could be conducted concurrently with the planning discussions regarding the street utility fee. Mr. Pryor suggested that a collaborative group comprised of business, government and community leaders be formed to explore the best ways in which a street utility fee might be implemented in a manner similar to what had been instituted in other Oregon cities such as Tigard. Mr. Pryor agreed that it would be very important to use EWEB as an effective collaborative partner with respect to the implementation of the street utility fee. Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Brown regarding the manner in which street utility fee revenues would be used, noted that it had not yet been determined if the street utility fees would be directed expressly toward the Public Works operations and maintenance backlog. Mr. Brown believed that a parking-based model for the street utility fee made more sense than a trip- generation-based fee and agreed with Mr. Pryor’s suggestion that a collaborative group might be formed to address the matter. Ms. Ortiz hoped that future discussions regarding the implementation of the street utility fee would be connected to other considerations such as LTD’s planned EmX expansions as well as other issues that might affect how and where motor vehicles were used throughout the area. Ms. Solomon believed a parking-based model might not be the most equitable manner in which to proceed with the street utility fee and hoped that any collaborative groups formed to investigate the matter would consider instances where a residence might have more than two vehicles. Ms. Solomon expressed that a necessary first step on the street utility fee would be for the City to enlist the cooperation of EWEB for the billing/collection of the fee. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 5 Work Session