Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Solomon recalled that the council asked staff to return with a picture of what the program <br />would look like with a reduced fee. Mr. Schoening recalled that the mayor had suggested that the <br />City needed to decide whether that was a feasible option. He was suggesting that additional cuts <br />would not be feasible, and to reduce the program by $2 million would already require the City to <br />negotiate the conditions of the NPDES permit with the Department of Environmental Quality. He <br />did not think the City would be able to reduce the costs by more and still successfully negotiate <br />changes in the permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commended the background materials as informative. He liked the idea of the two <br />boundary conditions proposed by staff (determine the necessary user fee increase to fully fund the <br />current program and determine the service level reductions necessary to meet the current user <br />fee revenue) and looked forward to the additional staff analysis. Mr. Kelly asked that when staff <br />examines the current funding picture, it keep in mind being responsive to all of the main objectives <br />of CSWMP. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the decision to proceed with <br />acquisitions was a council decision, not a staff decision. Staff had analyzed the potential sites for <br />acquisition and there were several priorities for stream corridor acquisition. He asked if all of the <br />potential sites would be purchased during the three years the rate increase was in effect. Mr. <br />Schoening said no. Mr. Kelly concluded that what the council had decided to do merely <br />purchased a portion of the high-priority sites. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Kelly's summation of the council's action, saying she continued to <br />support stream corridor acquisitions. Her one concern was that the City was dealing with willing <br />sellers only. Some of the highest priority streams did not have willing sellers, and she thought the <br />council should consider condemnation to acquire them. She recalled that the council had also <br />spent considerable time discussing the merits of a green infrastructure, and believed that the <br />environmental benefits of that approach had more merit than just the cost savings. She confirmed <br />with Mr. Schoening that staff sought out opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure in the <br />system. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor thought the City was taking the right approach and only wanted to know how the <br />acquisitions could be done faster. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if stream corridor acquisition funds were segregated in a separate fund and if so, <br />what the balance of the fund was. Mr. Schoening indicated the funds were not segregated, but <br />tracked in the capital budget. He was unsure of the balance. Mr. Pap8 hoped the council held <br />another work sesssion on the topic and requested information on the fund balance at that time. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ wanted to see what a Stormwater Program that cost $8 million would look like. He <br />asked that the acquisition map be updated to illustrate the status of the City's priorities. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 solicited a second round of comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson thought the stormwater program's budget needed to be reexamined, noting that <br />every other program area experienced budget reductions. She also wanted to see a smaller <br />program budget, and asked if Eugene would endanger its NPDES permit by reducing the budget <br />or if the City could negotiate with the federal government around its BMPs. Ms. Nathanson <br />thought staff was on the right track and was pleased by the careful analysis that had been done, <br />but suggested that changes might be needed. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />