Laserfiche WebLink
percent increase in user fees would be necessary to fully fund the current <br /> program. <br />Scenario 2 Assumes that stormwater service level reductions would be made to balance <br /> program expenditures with the current user fee revenue. The fiscal year 2005 <br /> projected program expenditures of $10,677,000 would be reduced by $2,097,000 <br /> to match projected revenues of $8,580,000. <br />Scenario 3 Assumes that stormwater program service level reductions would be made to <br /> balance expenditures with a reduction of $2 million in current user fee revenue. <br /> The fiscal year 2005 projected program expenditures of $10,677,000 would be <br /> reduced by $4,097,000. This would result in an approximate 23-percent decrease <br /> in user fees. <br /> <br />Speaking to Scenario 1, Mr. Schoening said it brings the City closer to meeting the goals of <br />CSWMP, meets the requirements of the NPDES permit, and represents a proactive approach to <br />stormwater management. Speaking to Scenario 2, Mr. Schoening said that staff believed it could <br />renegotiate the NPDES permit renewal at that funding level. There would be a significant setback <br />in the progress the City had made toward the goals and policies of CSWMP, reductions in some <br />areas and the elimination of other services areas, particularly those related to the Endangered <br />Species Act (ESA) response, the Willamette River clean-up, and vegetation management <br />associated with the stormwater program. The balance between water quality, natural resource <br />preservation, and flood control would shift toward water quality. Speaking to Scenario 3, Mr. <br />Schoening said the funding level for the scenario was about equivalent to the 1993 program, <br />when its goals were merely flood control and drainage. The City's ability to meet the goals and <br />policies of CSWMP would be curtailed, and he did not think the City could successfully negotiate <br />its permit renewal with the DEQ at that funding level. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening called the council's attention to Attachment A, a spreadsheet in the meeting packet <br />entitled Stormwater Program Review that contrasted the program elements under the three <br />scenarios. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoening recommended adoption of Scenario 2. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ solicited a first round of council questions and comments. <br /> <br />Referring to Mr. Schoening's comparison of the funding levels of the 1993 program and Scenario <br />3, Mr. Meisner asked if Scenario 3 would allow the City to put aside reserves each year. Mr. <br />Schoening said no. Mr. Meisner noted his long-time concern that the City had established such a <br />high stormwater fee that it was able to build up large reserves. He did not want to see that <br />happen again. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner referred to Attachment A and asked Mr. Schoening to explain why the expense of <br />maintaining the constructed storm system jumped in Scenario 3. Mr. Schoening said that it <br />reflected the elimination of the leaf pick-up program, which would add to costs in that area. Mr. <br />Meisner suggested that be information be footnoted. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked who the program managers were. He asked how many staff existed, who they <br />were, and what they did. Mr. Schoening indicated he would provide that information. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />