The Oregon City Commission approved a temporary 60-day fare increase for Sassy's Cab on a motion to grant the company’s requested rate changes while staff investigates other for‑hire providers operating in the city and possible enforcement steps.

The action follows an extended public discussion in which Jim O'Connor, owner of Sassy's Cab, described sustained financial pressure on his company and drivers, and urged the commission to allow a higher minimum fare to cover long drives and slow downtown call density. "We have many drivers that are dedicated that work 5, 6, 7 days a week, 10, 12 hours a day that they could show me where they come up with a less than minimum wage," O'Connor said. "They do deserve the respect of this city and the whole county for the service that they provide."

Commissioners debated whether Oregon City should be the only municipality in the region regulating taxi fares and whether the requested $7 minimum was justified. Commissioner Doug Neely said he was uneasy being the sole local regulator in the region and described himself as "kind of a market guy," though he ultimately supported the temporary increase to avoid placing the company in immediate financial hardship. Other commissioners pressed staff on whether other companies operate in Oregon City without local business licenses and on the practicality of enforcing licensing requirements for out‑of‑jurisdiction providers.

Lemie O'Connor, who identified herself as co‑owner of Sassy's Cab, described investments made to modernize the fleet and the difficulty of covering costs when drivers must travel long distances between fares. "We bought the company with our money and immediately started turning that around," she said. "We cannot do that. We are backing up against a hole."

City legal counsel and staff noted ORS 221.495 (state statute) delegates authority to municipalities to regulate entry into the market and rates when a city chooses to do so. Commissioners agreed to a temporary approval so the company could adjust meters and continue service while staff compiles data on other providers and potential enforcement options; staff was directed to return with findings before the 60‑day period expires.

The commission recorded the temporary approval and additional instruction to staff; the transcript does not show a detailed roll‑call tally for the final approval. The commission also discussed but rejected a motion to table the item pending more documentation (a tabling motion failed earlier in the discussion).