CC Minutes - 10/10/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

He said that this would fully optimize the objectives, as laid out by staff, with the implementation of an $.80 per month rate increase. 2. A modified plan He said this would include a modification to sites acquired and reduced reliance on the Stormwater user fee. 3. Expand the scope of the study He said that this option would address the geographic balance of the study. Mr. Bingham said staff was recommending going with the original recommendation, or if that was unacceptable, going with Option l(b) as outlined in the meeting packet. Mr. Bingham distributed a graph showing figures for stormwater fees for various uses and zones. Ms. Taylor expressed her preference for the second option outlined by Mr. Bingham. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding whether full acquisition could be achieved if the fee was capped at $.50, stormwater funds were used, and grants were sought, Mr. Bingham said that full acquisition could be implemented, but it would be a longer acquisition schedule. Ms. Taylor stressed that she was not so much interested in cost reduction as in protection of waterways. She stressed the importance of reducing future environmental costs by doing preventive work. In response to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding whether the reduced acquisition plans would still include the waterways identified in her ward area as having existing or potential capacity problems, Mr. Bingham said they would. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding whether there were significant areas overlooked in the plan, Mr. Bingham said there had been a screening of the entire city limits and the urban growth boundary focusing on corridors that scored high on selected criteria. He said that what was found was listed in the recommendation. He acknowledged that there could be some isolated sites that did not present the same opportunities for acquisition due to existing development as what were recommended by staff. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the possibilities of restoring the areas not recommended for purchase by a voluntary program with citizens, Mr. Bingham said that there is an existing Stream Team volunteer program that may or may not address restoration sites. Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its thorough work. He said he preferred Option l(a) as presented in the meeting packet, but would also support l(b) if that had the majority of council support. In response to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding how Eugene's fees compared with other jurisdictions along the I-5 Corridor, Fred McVey of Public Works Engineering noted that a formal comparison had not been done but estimated that Eugene's fees would be in the "mid to upper range." MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 2001 Page 3 Work Session