CC Minutes - 10/10/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

2. Only acquire high priority sites (tier 1, 2, and 3). Mr. Bingham said the range in these options was as high as $6.1 million; only acquiring the tier 1- 3 sites brought the cost down to $.5 million, where the sites in the development review process would be pulled because of issues associated with the development review process. He noted that costs could be reduced substantially using these methods but added that some would have a high cost in terms of impact to the overall objectives of the study. 3. Modify the funding approach. Mr. Bingham said there would be three methods of modifying the funding: 1. Use of the storm fund balance could help start the acquisitions in the early years. He said that if all of the tier 1 and 2 sites were acquired at once there would be a need for other funds besides the user fee rate funds. He said staff was suggesting use of as much as $850,000 of that balance. 2. Potential use of outside funds, donations, grants, and incentives. Mr. Bingham cautioned that while there were opportunities to apply for grants and other funding but cautioned that these were not reliable approaches to funding the program. He estimated that 10 percent of the costs might be funded through outside sources. 3. Increase user fee rate increase. Mr. Bingham noted that the original staff recommendation was $.80 per month for a medium residential customer. He said that capping the rate increase at $.50 per month went back to the Stormwater Department Advisory Committee (DAC) and Stormwater Systems Development Charge DAC recommendations. Mr. Bingham said it was possible to combine these options to further reduce costs. As an example, he suggested reducing costs by capping the user fee, going after grants and donations, and rely on the Stormwater Fund balance. He commented that staff felt this would be the best mix in terms of maximizing objectives and reducing costs and reliance on the Stormwater user fee. 4. Look at geographic balance of acquisitions citywide. Mr. Bingham noted that both the City Council and the Stormwater DAC had commented on the locations of the proposed acquisitions being primarily in south Eugene. He acknowledged that there were a couple of corridors in north Eugene (the Gilham Creek Corridor and the East Santa Clara Waterway Corridor), but said that the scope of the study would have to be expanded to look at restoration of waterways in developed neighborhoods. He said that the original scope of the study was to protect the "higher priority" resource waterways. Mr. Bingham offered three options for the council to consider: 1. The original staff recommendation MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 2 Work Session