CC Minutes - 08/11/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking to the question of whether the program contributed to other City programs and activities, Mr. Corey said that there were activities within the program itself that could be funded by the General Fund if money was available. However, he thought the use of program funds in those areas were defensible. Speaking to the question of what a $6 million program would look like, Mr. Corey reported that the Finance Division had rolled rates ahead from 1993 when the program was focused only on flood control, and there was no Clean WaterAct or NPDES requirements. Those numbers, carried forward, indicated that today about $6.3 million would be generated for a flood control program. He concluded that the City was paying for that demand as well as all the other multiple objectives of the Comprehensive Stormwater Master Plan (CSWMP) with an additional $2 million annually. He reiterated that rates had not been adjusted in ten years. Mr. Corey believed that the current level of service, as contained within Scenario 1, was in line with the community's original program objectives, was defensible, and should be maintained. He said that scaling back the program would lead to lost opportunities and increased future costs to meet the same objectives the program was attempting to meet today. Mr. Corey noted community support for the record as evidenced by a survey conducted in March 2003. The survey indicated that more than 80 percent of the community was aware of the major program elements, such as street cleaning and leaf pick-up, 70 percent were aware of the West Eugene Wetlands Program, 40 percent were aware of the National Flood Insurance Program, and more than 60 percent of the community understood that the stormwater and wastewater system were separate. He reported that 40 percent of respondents indicated that the cost of the program was just right or too little; 25 percent indicated it cost too much; and 20 percent did not know. People were asked if they were satisfied with how the fees were being used; 40 percent indicated they were somewhat or very satisfied; 10 percent were dissatisfied; and 50 percent did not know. Mr. Corey clarified that the staff recommendation for Scenario 2 represented an answer to the question, "What was the minimum program level that could minimally meet the requirements of the NPDES permit?" He said that the recommendation should be interpreted as a minimum baseline. Without a rate adjustment to fund the current service level, program elements would be lost. The motion on the floor was as follows: Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to implement Scenario 1. Mayor Torrey called for debate on the motion. Mr. Kelly supported the motion because of the many service reductions that would occur to vital programs if the program budget was reduced as called for in Scenario 2. Mr. Pap~ did not support Scenario 1 because it was his perception that Scenario 2 provided adequate funding for program elements such as education and outreach. He did not understand why funds for land use development and review were in the program budget. He also thought the administrative component of the budget should be carefully scrutinized. Ms. Nathanson believed that the council had put huge pressure on other departments to economize and they had done so. In this case, she thought that the program needed to scale MINUTES-Eugene City Council August 11, 2003 Page 6 Work Session