CC Minutes - 02/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor stated she opposed the motion due to the fact that the stormwater fees would not be raised sufficiently; consequently, another component of the Stormwater Program would be negatively impacted. She pointed out that the Road Fund was funded by the General Fund in the past; hence, her amendment. Mr. Kelly suggested that the motion be quite specific. He said his interpretation of the motion was that a draft FY07 budget would in fact be brought to the Budget Committee on April 24 to increase the stormwater fee at approximately six to seven percent. Mr. Kelly concurred that the stormwater issue was quite complex and recalled that an extensive review undertaken two years ago resulted in service reductions to avoid an increase in the fees. He said that all the historical information around this issue would be helpful to the council. City Manager Taylor explained that the motion put before the council took one-half of the funding gap and transferred it to the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program, which would increase its fees in a corresponding way to present a balanced budget to the Budget Committee. He further explained that if the council approved the motion, it would be in addition to the increases it approved at the January session, at the time the review of the permit requirements and stream corridor acquisition ensued. Mr. Pape? pointed out that the stormwater fee was raised by 30 cents for the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program on January 23. He said the council may choose to decrease that program in the amount of $180,000, rather than increase the stormwater fee. Mr. Corey pointed out that the fees for utility rates were typically adjusted once per year. He explained that the action taken by the council on January 23 was a direction to adjust fees the next time they were increased--typically in July—to accommodate the additional acquisition program. Additionally, he said that the council acted in Fall 2005 to direct staff to add the necessary component to meet the increasing NPDES stormwater permit discharge requirements. He said those directions would act together in a rate increase proposal in the spring or early summer. Mr. Pape? stated he would support the motion, but not in anticipation of a significant increase in the stormwater fee. Based on the above discussion, Mr. Kelly stated he would not now support the motion as he did not want to put at risk all the work that has been done around stormwater acquisition. The motion passed 4:3, with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Taylor in opposition. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back a pro- posal for the implementation of a Eugene Livability Fee (ELF) to fund programs that en- hance community livability and transportation alternatives, including funding for the street trees/median maintenance program. Mr. Poling stated he would not support the motion as it would be perceived by the community as a “nickel and dime” approach. Rather, he suggested that an uncomplicated system such as the Transportation System Maintenance Fee (TSMF) be instituted, which would be fair and equitable and clearly define how the fee would be expended. He stressed that the business community and neighborhood associations needed to be included in the process to ensure that it was in fact fair and equitable. Mr. Poling noted that the community wants the pavement maintenance brought up to par. Mr. Pape? opined that the motion was a property tax in disguise. Mr. Corey explained that the motion would implement a fee for a particular service provided through the Road Fund and it would be a policy decision as to whether or not to offer the service. He said if the overriding concern was whether it was a tax, it could be MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 27, 2006 Page 4 Work Session