Item 8 - Ratif.IGR Comm.Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

$144 million in capital improvements, most intended to prevent raw sewage overflows from reaching the river. The cost of complying with the bill would be $150 million to $200 million above what was already scheduled. Mr. Pap6 asked how the City's partners in the regional wastewater facility perceived the bill. Mr. Ruffler said that Springfield staff had expressed similar concerns about the cost of complying with the bill. He pointed out that there were already community concerns about the cost of addressing raw sewage overflows. He noted that the City's mixing zone extended about 200 feet into the river; if the mixing zone was eliminated, that area would be the area benefited. He said the full width was not affected as the City was not allowed to impact the full width of the river. Ms. Bettman suggested that Mr. Ruffler's statement was misleading because of the cumulative impact of all such mixing zones on the health of river. Mr. Ruffler clarified that was true of substances such as persistent biocumulative toxins. However, there was a range of organic pollutants that are biodegradable, such as ammonia, which was a concern for the City. The City can currently treat for ammonia and discharge it into the mixing zone; by the time it reaches the edge of the mixing zone it was below the water quality standard and would further degrade naturally along the length of the river. Substances such as metal are not biodegradable and can accumulate along the length of the river. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Ruffler indicated that the stormwater system was not affected by the bill. Ms. Bettman said that it would take something like the bill in question to turn the health of the river around. The river would only get more polluted as Oregon grew. She wanted to see a healthy river for her grandchildren to fish and swim in. Other communities relied on the river for drinking water. She said her amendment would allow staff to request phasing that allowed it to go through two cycles of NPDES permit renewal. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Ruffler said the bill included no funding to support any costs the City incurred in complying with the bill. It included an exemption provision but the City would have to pay for the resulting analysis. As written, the exemption was not very useful because the text was indeterminate and vague. He was not sure how effective it would be. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ruffler noted that a public hearing on the bill was scheduled for February 28. Ms. Brooks indicated she would attend the hearing and represent the City. Mr. Pap6 determined from staff that the City of Portland opposed it. Ms. Bettman asked if anyone had calculated the costs of not doing what the bill called for. Mr. Ruffler said no. Priority 2 Bills Referring to HB 2355, which would allow the defendant in a condemnation action to amend or revise an appraisal at any time before a trial as long the amendment or revision did not result in a substantial change to the claimed compensation, Ms. Taylor asked who sponsored the bill, and why. Mr. Lidz said the bill was sponsored by Representative Burley at the request of a private citizen, Edward Fitch. He did not know why the bill had been introduced, although he suspected it was to give greater flexibility to the process. He believed there were risks and benefits from the bill. He did not think it would make much of a difference, and noted his recommendation to monitor the bill. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 24, 2005 Page 3