CC Minutes - 07/16/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to postpone action until August 11, 2003. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Taylor clarified that his earlier remarks about targeted corridor acquisition related to his concerns that the City would pay more. He thought that conservation easements needed to be pursued more aggressively if the council adopted scenarios 2 or 3. Ms. Bettman found Mr. Taylor's recommendation confusing. She said that it was not the most transparent way for the council to reach its objectives. In response, Mr. Taylor repeated that he had attempted to frame the discussion in the context of the entire program and in response to the question of the effect of different levels of reductions. The annualized increase associated with the 50-cent fee increase was about $577,000. His question to the council was whether it would rather devote that to stream corridor acquisition, or if it preferred to restore some of the elements of the program that would be lost by adoption scenarios 2 or 3. Ms. Taylor thought the City should acquire the highest priority corridors first. She asked Mr. Taylor his opinion of condemnation. Mr. Taylor had no opinion in this instance; he would need a specific example. He said that it could be a useful tool, but could also result in extra costs, such as the costs of litigation. Mr. Taylor believed that in addition to acquisition, the council should consider other ways to protect natural resources to achieve the same goals. Mr. Pap~ said that he had heard complaints from the general public about the combined impact of the City's adoption of the transportation system maintenance fee and the increase in the stormwater fee. He said that many residents believe that water quality was fine. Mr. Pap~ asked if stream corridor acquisitions were cross-referenced to the City's inventory of buildable lands. He hoped that was occurring so that the City could track that impact and avoid the need to expand the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kelly emphasized to Mr. Taylor that the council direction related to the fee increase was to use it for stream corridor acquisition. While the administrative hearing notice was very broad in terms of the intent of the increase, the information that was published in The Register-Guard and provided to people in their EWEB bills stated the fee increase was related to acquisition. He believed if the purpose was changed, the City would have to hold another administrative public hearing and renotice the public in their EWEB bills. He proposed that Mr. Taylor consider framing the issue by asking the council where it would direct the fee increase. In response, Mr. Taylor suggested that a larger community discussion of its priorities as they related to the program would be useful in guiding the council discussion. Mr. Pap~ adjourned the meeting at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 10 Work Session