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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked the cost of the leaf pick-up program. Mr. Schoening indicated it cost $337,000. Ms. Taylor asked if the elimination of the program would cause problems, given that people were composting and they could be educated to put leaves in the yard debris bins. Mr. Schoening said there would be an initial period of public adjustment, and the City would still have to pick up leaves from the trees in the public rights-of-way. Ms. Taylor asked why staff thought any elements of the program should be reduced. She suggested that there was a good reason for the activities happening now. Mr. Schoening said that the current program met the requirements of the NPDES permit and brought the City closer to meeting the goals of CSWMP. The scenarios before the council were essentially based on the forecast program budget shortfall. Raising the fees was an alternative. Ms. Taylor expressed surprise that staff would recommend reductions in the program's budget given the community's general support for environmental protection and water quality. She said that she could not justify any reductions in the program. She thought the current program met the City's long-term goals and the long-term needs of the community. Mr. Kelly shared Ms. Taylor's surprise that the council was discussing reducing the program when it should be applauding staff's efficiency since the fee had not been increased for ten years. He did not understand the push to reduce the program as long as the goals in CSWMP were the goals of the council and community. Mr. Kelly indicated a preference for Scenario 1. He had examined the reductions in Scenario 2 and suggested the council needed to determine if it was comfortable with the reductions and eliminations in Scenario 2, which would require the City to eliminate all education around the Endangered Species Act and the salmon listing. He said that people's activities made a real difference to water quality, making education very important. Under the scenario, the City would be eliminating education and the City's response to the ESA, and reducing several vital and needed activities by a considerable amount. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the level of reserves in the program fund, Mr. Schoening indicated that there were no reserves left. The stream corridor acquisition fund was nearly depleted as well, as all funds were committed. Mr. Pap~ thanked staff for the information provided in the packet. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding why the legal costs varied from scenario to scenario, Mr. Schoening said that the cost estimates reflected the relative risk created by each scenario, with City staff relying less on the City Attorney's Office when making decisions. Mr. Pap~ asked what would be lost in the category of capital project planning between scenarios. Mr. Schoening said that the difference related to how much support the City would be able to provide to studies such as the Region 2050 project being conducted by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). Mr. Pap~ asked why LCOG did not pay those costs. Mr. Schoening said that was an option. Generally the City participated in such efforts and staff would have to reevaluate that in the future. Mr. Pap~ asked about current planned expenditures. Mr. Schoening said that some of the costs the City's design teams incurred, if not related to a specific project, were charged to the general Stormwater Fund. Staff would have to reevaluate how it charged those projects in the future if the funding was reduced, and activities would be reduced. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 3 Work Session