Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Corey noted there had been some consensus from the council regarding their desire for further <br />information and investigation into the concept of a street utility fee. Mr. Corey directed the council <br />members to their copies of his November 15, 2007 memorandum to them and noted that the information <br />contained therein remained current. <br />Mr. Corey briefly described how a street utility fee would operate whereby the City would take a <br />transportation system and put it in the context of any other utility system such as water or electricity. He <br />noted that a transportation utility fee would be intended to develop a model to assess user fees to transpor- <br />tation systems based upon the level of use by various classes of users. <br />Mr. Corey commented that recent discussions with members of the local business community such as the <br />Northwest Grocers Association regarding the use of a street utility fee had been mildly encouraging. <br />Mr. Corey noted that the lack of a billing system for the City to use in collection of a street utility fee <br />represented a significant constraint. He further noted that while EWEB performed billing for the City's <br />wastewater /stormwater services, they had been historically reluctant to extend such billing practices to <br />collect a street utility fee on behalf of Eugene. <br />Mr. Corey reported that it would not be cost effective for the City to implement its own billing system for a <br />street utility fee due to the significant up -front and ongoing costs involved. <br />Mr. Corey stated that staff was seeking clear consensus regarding the specific direction to take regarding <br />the street utility fee. He underscored the need for policy level discussions with the EWEB board of <br />directors as the matter moved forward. <br />Ms. Piercy recognized that Mr. Corey viewed the street utility fee as the last viable option from among the <br />other funding solutions that had been considered and also that a clear consensus from the council would be <br />needed. <br />Mr. Clark noted that he would support Option 2 as listed in the agenda item summary and felt that there <br />could not be a worse time for the City to create a new tax. He suggested that the council should continue to <br />hold discussions regarding the prioritization and use of the City's general fund in order to better address <br />and reflect the community's expectations regarding road repairs and improvements. He stated that he could <br />not support further investigations into the use of the street utility fee until such conversations had taken <br />place. <br />Mr. Zelenka felt that further conversations regarding the priorities assigned to the general fund might not be <br />productive and noted that the street utility fee would be an efficient and equitable means of generating <br />revenue to deal with the transportation funding backlog. <br />Mr. Zelenka stated that the parking -based street utility fee would be more explainable to the public than a <br />trip -based model. <br />Mr. Corey, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that an average number of two parking spaces <br />per residence were expected to be used for the parking -based street utility fee. <br />Mr. Poling expressed he was in favor of moving the discussion regarding the street utility fee forward but <br />not necessarily the policy itself. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />