Laserfiche WebLink
and the district had resisted the inclusion of landscaping when it redeveloped old parking lots. <br />The district advocated for more impervious surfaces and then did not want to pay the fee. <br />However, she would favor a way to reduce the fee to the school districts if such a way could be <br />found. If there was a way for the districts to reduce the impervious surface on school property, <br />she would also favor that. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested the issue to be considered was where the City addressed stormwater: <br />when it hit the ground, or when it came through pipe. She wanted to enhance and accelerate the <br />program. The up-front costs would be recovered in the long-term, and the approach would <br />provide multiple community benefits, such as aquifer recharge, water filtering, and wildlife habitat <br />creation. She pointed out that frequently, developments were built near protected stormwater <br />corridors, which then became an amenity for the development and added to the value of the <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the council's adoption of the fee increase had represented government at its <br />worst. The council heard no input because it held no public hearings. There had been a mailer, <br />and he heard several complaints from constituents. He said that it was shod-sighted to adopt the <br />program without considering alternatives. It was corridor acquisition or nothing. The City was not <br />considering easements or anything else. He did not know if acquisition at market prices was the <br />right approach. He thought the City overpaid for some of the land that had been acquired. Such <br />land was either developable or it was not, but the costs did not reflect that. He had objected to <br />the fee increase at the time and did not find it an alternative to the court's voiding of the Open <br />Waterways ordinance. He thought the City could do better. <br /> <br />Speaking to remarks made by other councilors regarding the council's adopted policies, Mr. <br />Meisner recalled that the council directed staff to use the reserves and then implement the fee <br />increase. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that when a motion was made to repeal the increase, he would support it. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ noted his concern about the connectivity of stream corridors that were acquired, and <br />from his examination of the map of acquisitions, he questioned whether the City was taking the <br />most effective route or the route of least resistance. Mr. Schoening said that the approach was a <br />little of both. The City was buying from willing sellers and at this point had bits and pieces of <br />corridors throughout the city. Mr. Pap~ said he preferred to target specific, contiguous areas for <br />acquisition. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ did not disagree about the value of green infrastructure, but asked if the City had <br />examined some of the new technologies that were available for installation at City outfalls. He <br />asked about the number of existing City outfalls and if the City had reviewed the costs of <br />maintaining open corridors versus technological improvements. Mr. Schoening said that the two <br />approaches were complementary, not exclusionary. The City had implemented the new <br />technology on some projects. The City incorporated water quality features into its own projects, <br />but he did not think that diminished the goals or benefits of acquiring stream corridors. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor questioned targeting a particular corridor given that it might be a limited strategy that <br />added to the overall cost of acquisition. Mr. Pap~ said that while the approach might cost more, it <br />could provide the City with a greater "bang for its buck," although he acknowledged that he really <br />did not know the answer to that. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />