Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Mr. Poling commented that the use of some sort of street utility fee seemed logical as everyone in the City <br />used the roads in some capacity regardless of their preferred mode of transportation. <br />Mr. Poling noted that it would be essential to include EWEB in any discussions of the street utility fee and <br />the collection of those fees. <br />Mr. Poling continued to believe that it might be best to refer the use of the street utility fee to the voters. <br />Mr. Poling added that he also favored the parking -based model rather than the trip - generation -based street <br />utility fee. <br />Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Taylor, believed that most residential <br />properties would typically be considered to have two parking spaces and that any special dispensations to <br />be given to residences with more or less than two parking spaces had yet to be determined. <br />Ms. Taylor averred that a vehicle registration fee would be less taxing on the public than a street utility fee <br />and that the City had not worked diligently enough to explore the use of a vehicle registration fee. She <br />believed that effective communications with Lane County government representatives as well as representa- <br />tives from other city leaders within the County might make passage of a local vehicle registration fee <br />possible. <br />Ms. Taylor believed that using EWEB's billing system to collect the street utility fee would not be <br />effective. <br />Mr. Pryor stated that the street utility fee represented a very important revenue - generating opportunity but <br />believed that it would only be so if it was executed responsibly and in partnership with the rest of the <br />community including local businesses and municipalities. <br />Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding specific rates and the number of parking spaces to be <br />applied to the street utility fee would be premature without further consultation with various community <br />representatives. <br />Mr. Pryor believed that any discussions regarding prioritizations of the general fund could be conducted <br />concurrently with the planning discussions regarding the street utility fee. <br />Mr. Pryor suggested that a collaborative group comprised of business, government and community leaders <br />be formed to explore the best ways in which a street utility fee might be implemented in a manner similar to <br />what had been instituted in other Oregon cities such as Tigard. <br />Mr. Pryor agreed that it would be very important to use EWEB as an effective collaborative partner with <br />respect to the implementation of the street utility fee. <br />Mr. Corey, responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Brown regarding the manner in which street <br />utility fee revenues would be used, noted that it had not yet been determined if the street utility fees would <br />be directed expressly toward the Public Works operations and maintenance backlog. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council July 15, 2009 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />