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

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly pointed out to Mr. Meisner that the reserves were now gone, and he did not believe that there were any large projects funded from those reserves that the council could identify as misspent funds or not spent in accordance with the CSWMP. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Schoening if he had considered whether the setback in achieving the goals and policies of the CSWMP as a result of adoption of Scenario 2 would be significant enough to require amendments to the CSWMP. Mr. Schoening said no. He suggested that the issue before the council was the direction the program took from this point forward. He would be more concerned if the council adopted Scenario 3. Ms. Bettman asked if staff had considered phasing in the increased fee in Scenario 1. Mr. Schoening said no. He said that there was potential for that. However, at a certain level, the City would lose the staff expertise developed for specific programs. There would be a need for reductions before the fee was fully phased in. Mr. Taylor added that was one of the reasons that staff scheduled a discussion of the stormwater fee increase. Staff wished to ask the council if, given the reductions required under Scenario 2, it would like staff to devote the resources that would have gone to the Stream Corridor Acquisition Program to maintain more of the program that would be lost if Scenario 2 was adopted, which would better the City's position in its permit renewal discussions with the DEQ. Ms. Bettman clarified that the staff recommendation was actually Scenario 2 plus the seven-percent increase. She asked how that made more sense than simply adopting Scenario 1 and foregoing the increase. Mr. Taylor said that was an option. Ms. Bettman highlighted the fact there was a line item in the budget for staff support in reviewing permits. She said that was one of the subsidies she was referring to when she talked about development subsidies. Money was being spent in areas other than the Permit and Information Center to facilitate development and it was not being recovered through permit fees. Ms. Bettman said that she considered scenarios 2 and 3 to be salmon abandonment plans. The Stormwater Program was focused on water quality, flood management, and habitat protection. She thought the plan in place was minimal already and objected to further program reductions. She said that it did not represent the approach the community should be taking. She supported Scenario 1. Ms. Taylor also supported Scenario 1 as well as retention of the 50-cent fee increase. She found it strange that decisions made by the council within the past two years, such as the fee increase, were being reconsidered at this time given the amount of thoughtful discussion and citizen input that occurred. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's remarks, Mr. Pap~ did not think the City was abandoning the goals of the CSWMP or the salmon. He recalled when the salmon did not visit this part of the river and said that over the years, the situation had progressed to where people were now catching salmon in front of the Valley River Inn. He thought that the best means to retain water quality was to keep campers off the riverbanks. He called for a riverbank clean-up and vegetation clearing so that people could see the river from the bicycle path. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City had a way to evaluate the results of its educational efforts. Mr. Schoening believed the City was realizing good results, and surveys indicated increased awareness of stormwater issues and a change in behavior on the part of those surveyed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 5 Work Session