Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. Smith added that specifics must be available before a public hearing can be <br />held. She said that if EWCC can provide funding and provide a definitive plan <br />City Council could support it. Ms. Wooten concurred. <br /> <br />Mr. Lindberg recommended that staff be directed to consider the options and <br />report back to City Council. He said there are four levels of effort that <br />coul d be chosen and information is needed on how those coul d be pursued. He <br />said the fi rst is the minimum-effort 1 evel of maintaining the water rights <br />which the City currently has. The second level is naming a pl ace to receive and <br />interpret information, such as the Public Works Department, at Which to consider <br />flood control information prior to maki ng a staff recommendation, and to <br />consider which option to pursue. The third level is exploring funding sources. <br />The fourth option is the maximum-effort 1 evel which involves pl anning, the most <br />staff time, and the highest level of commitment. Mr. Lindberg added that steps <br />one through three could be done without holding a public hearing since City <br />staff woul d not be involved to a very high degree. <br /> <br />Ms. Schue agreed with Ms. Wooten about public input and she agreed with Ms. <br />Smith that this may not be the time to have a hearing process. However, Ms. <br />Schue does not want the deci si on made that the Emeral d Canal wi 11 never be <br />b ui 1 t. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer commented that a public hearing is premature now but Emerald Canal <br />information must be exposed to determine if the public wants further exploration. <br />He suggested a two-stage process with evaluation being the first. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason added that a typical way in Which a project is undertaken begins <br />with a scoping study. The next step is a formal feasiblity analysis Which is <br />one percent of the cost of the project, in this case $200,000. At that point, <br />if a decision is made to proceed, a design study is done with ten percent of <br />the cost or $2 mill ion, then construction begins. He said publ ic hearings can <br />be plugged in at any point in the process. That decision is up to City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Kell er added a fi fth 1 evel of effort is the yearly operation costs which <br />may have more impact. He said honesty in prioritizing $300,000 in that program <br />versus whatever el se the Ci ty might do is necessary. He added the Ci ty cannot <br />do all the fi nancing. <br /> <br />Mr. Diethelm emphasized that over the past few years a series of five public <br />hearings have been held with generally positive feedback. He said the project <br />is so complex and links so many possibilities that more public education is <br />necessary. Mr. Redhead added that two public hearings were held during the <br />task force tenure. 75 percent of those people speaking were citizens of the <br />city 0 f Eugene. <br /> <br />ML Wooten stressed her will ingness to extend the pl anning process but <br />expressed concern that City Council needs to hold a hearing before a decision is <br />made. <br /> <br />Mr. Porter emphasized the importance of EWCC having the benefit of working with <br />a committee that includes representatives of both the City and County. He added <br />feasibility studies are needed before a public hearing is held so the public <br />can have specific information. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />April 11, 1983 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />