New Search
EWEB also offers a very effective collection mechanism for city utility charges. Because of <br /> their ability to shut off water and electric services for non-payment, EWEB experiences an <br /> extremely high ultimate collection rate-nearly 97%. In contrast, our research has shown that <br /> relying on city collection methods alone, with no real ability to "shut off' transportation <br /> maintenance services, we would probably experience a collections rate closer to 80%. On an <br /> $8.0 million annual billing, this would equate to about $1.36 million in annual write-offs. <br /> 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 citizens-in 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 on the current EWEB billing <br /> statement. Although this is an option which was previously rejected by the Board, we continue <br /> to believe that this option offers the lowest cost and least complicated alternative. <br /> (_.)ur dc~ired outc~~nle at this 5ta~~~ ~~~~~uldhe for L~~"EIJ I3~_~~~r~i apprc~~~~1 ~~(,an c~pan~iun of thr <br /> cnrrcnt joint hillin~~ a~~rc~ni~nl ~~nd dil~~cti~~n ~c~ 11~'1_:I3 staCl~tu ~~orl: to~~c~h~r ~~~i~h City tital~l~t~~ <br /> condn~t ~m e~~aluation ~~fthe oE~tii~ns (or 1.11'1;13 to ~~ru~ ide t~illin~~ and cul(~ction s~-r~~ic~ [~>r th~- <br /> l 5~11~ on ~hc curr~nl 1~:AV'L,~E3 hillir~~~ stut~m~n~. ~1~}liti cti~aluati~~n ~roulrj include devcl~~pmcnl cif ii <br /> scuhc ~~1~~~ork. cost e~tinla<<s for both initial start-up coda and on~~c~in~~ bi]lin~~'ci~llectic>n 1cc~, <br /> projeetc~l s~stcn~ implementation time lines_ as well as i~lentilication ol~ho~ential barricr~ or <br /> challenges ~o the ell~~ri. <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 /> <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-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 /> <br />