CC Minutes - 05/28/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Schoening invited questions. Ms. Nathanson said the information in the packet was very responsive to her questions and she found it helpful. She asked if Attachment B could be translated to a pie chad or some other graphic representation for easier interpretation. She noted that she had wanted to know where the City should be spending its money, and staff had recommended education as a high priority. She noted that public education as reflected in Attachment B was a very small expenditure compared to some other program costs, and she suggested that the department might want to shift some resources from another area to supplement its educational efforts. Ms. Nathanson had other questions about several categories, including land use development plan review, which included the largest number of employees. She also had questions about the amount of money the City was spending on street sweeping, asking if the City would jeopardize water quality, road preservation, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and appearance by reducing that cost by a certain amount. Ms. Nathanson also had concerns about the size of the central service allocation (CSA) paid by the program. Mr. Schoening reported that in terms of the category of land use development plan review, the costs of privately engineered public improvements were fully recovered through the Professional Services Fund. The services delivered by staff at the Permit and Information Center were also completely covered by the permit fees charged by the City and activity levels depended on construction activity. Mr. Meisner also appreciated the information provided. He said he would be interested in exploring how the City could accomplish service level reductions while still maintaining its goals. He wanted things done more efficiently. He said that through the program, the City was acquiring stream corridors at such a rate that it would consume its reserves and then, without a public process, impose what amounted to a tax increase. He was concerned that those actions had occurred outside any prioritization process. Mr. Meisner noted that when he had questions about the program, he did not know who to call. There was no listing in the City telephone directory for the program. He did not know who the employees were or what was being paid for. He characterized the program as a "mystery money program" with commendable goals but thought that in terms of coordination with other efforts, the City had "jumped the gun" with acquisitions and the fee increase without the needed analysis. Ms. Bettman asked if staff had determined the current program was adequate to fulfill the City's obligations under the NPDES permit. Mr. Schoening said yes. Ms. Bettman asked how a green infrastructure compared to conventional "pipe and fill" infrastructure in terms of effectiveness and cost. She requested a matrix that compared those costs. Mr. Schoening said that staff could provide information on an academic level using studies that demonstrated green infrastructure was cheaper in the long term, but it would be more difficult to calculate on the basis of the actual system in place. Most of the system was already constructed and there was already a combined approach in place that was likely to be in place in perpetuity. Ms. Solomon asked if it was fair to say that Attachment B represented a fully funded stormwater program. Mr. Schoening clarified that the attachment reflected everything that was occurring now. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 7 Work Session