New Search
However, perhaps. the most persuasive argument for Board consideration for expansion of our <br /> current joint billing agreement to include billing for the TSMF is that it would be a <br /> demonstration to the citizens of Eugene of efficient and effective government, as they see EWEB <br /> and the City of Eugene working together as intergovernmental partners to minimize costs of <br /> utility fee collection across the two organizations. This, in turn, would result in a maximization <br /> of the revenue available for delivering direct services to our citizensin the case of this new fee, <br /> the repair and maintenance of the city's streets. <br /> Outcome Desired: <br /> On July 7, we received a note from Debra Smith, Assistant the EWEB General Manager, <br /> formally stating that they would need a formal request from the City asking EWEB to "consider <br /> billing the TMSF." To that end, we have drafted a letter from Dennis to Randy requesting that <br /> the EWEB Board consider an expansion of the current EWEB-City joint billing agreement to <br /> allow for billing of a transportation system maintenance fee as an additional separate line on the <br /> current EWEB billing statement. Although this is an option which was previously rejected by <br /> the Board, we continue to believe that this option offers the lowest cost and least complicated <br /> alternative. <br /> Obstacles to desired outcome -political, legal etc.: <br /> There are 3-4 issues which EWEB staff have outlined as the highest areas of concern for them <br /> and the Board: <br /> Respect between the Governing Bodies -What we heard from EWEB staff is that some of the <br /> Board's opposition in 2003 was directly related to the fact that they felt disrespected by the <br /> Council by the way that issue was processed <br /> both because they felt that they hadn't been <br /> approached with enough lead time (the city only came to them after the Council had already <br /> adopted the ordinance) and also because not one single Council member showed up at the Board <br /> meeting when this matter was under consideration (even though we explained to them that the <br /> billing issue wasn't in the Council's purview). <br /> For this reason, we would like to get on the Board agenda in the next 2-3 months so that we have <br /> plenty of time to address questions, explore options, etc. before the ordinance goes to council for <br /> adoption. We are offering in the request letter that we would be willing to have City Council, <br /> city management and staff representatives available at the meeting where this item is scheduled <br /> for consideration in order to address questions from the Board. <br /> Negative Customer Reactions -Another concern voiced by EWEB staff (and mirrored by the <br /> <br /> . Board) was that another charge on the EWEB bill would be viewed as "an increase in the EWEB <br /> bill," resulting in potential negative public relations for the Board. For this reason, we would <br /> need to be very clear in our public outreach and customer communications whose charge this <br /> was and the background/justification for it. <br /> Fee Creep -Yet another concern we have heard is that the TSMF is further evidence of "fee <br /> creep"-where every few years the City would add a new fee and expect EWEB to bill it. We <br /> have assured staff that, to the best of our knowledge, there are no other city fees envisioned by <br /> the current administration which would anticipate collection by EWEB. <br /> <br />