Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Schoening that the City measured water quality through its <br />monitoring efforts. Mr. Pap~ requested a memorandum on the topic of whether water quality was <br />improving as a result of the Stormwater Program. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ solicited a second round of comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the many private outfalls in the city also affected water quality. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he had received no constituent complaints about the increase, but several <br />commendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted correspondence from Greg Heir of School District 4J, in which Mr. Heir raised a <br />concern that the City's fees were not reduced when on-site detention features were installed, and <br />suggested that the City consider administrative reductions in the fee as a reward for developers <br />installing such facilities. Mr. Schoening indicated that such reductions were built into the rate <br />model but the City had not reached the point of adopting an ordinance requiring water quality <br />features for new development with those adjustments. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly <br />about when the council could expect to see the ordinance, Mr. Schoening indicated the answer <br />was dependent on which of the three scenarios the council adopted. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman suggested the City was missing an opportunity to work with the districts on how to <br />manage stormwater runoff at the new school sites. Mr. Taylor said that staff had offered the <br />district suggestions on how to mitigate those costs. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that the fee was administrative in nature. The City Council had held no <br />hearing when the manager raised garbage rates. No work session had been held, and no <br />councilor had objected. The fee was within the purview of the City Manager. She shared Mr. <br />Kelly's frustration that the council's direction of October 2001 was never implemented. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ called for a third round of comments. <br /> <br />Speaking to Mr. Meisner's remarks about the cost of the land that had been acquired, Ms. <br />Bettman said that without regulation, all property was developable. If there was a stream corridor <br />on a site, it could be piped and filled now. It did not make a property undevelopable, which was <br />why the City was paying market prices. The City had been unable to institute any regulations to <br />make the properties undevelopable. <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor clarified that he requested feedback on the fee because of the work sessions on the <br />Stormwater Program and the council's direction to staff to prepare a third scenario. Staff had, with <br />difficulty, developed a scenario that responded to the concerns expressed about current economic <br />conditions and the community's ability to pay. He had sought dialogue, in the context of the entire <br />program, before proceeding with the fee. He said that if the council chose scenarios 2 or 3, he <br />would recommend that the funds intended for acquisition instead be used to allow the City to <br />continue the program at a high level, and position it for a better discussion on the permit renewal <br />than it would otherwise be. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> begin collection of the increased fee for stream corridor acquisition as <br /> passed by the council in 2001. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 16, 2003 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />