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

Home Browse Search

back like other programs while the economy was so bad. For that reason, she could not support 100 percent funding for a number of different programs, including this one. Ms. Bettman supported the motion because of the vital programs that were funded. She noted that the council had insisted on increasing education regarding the program because it was resistant to regulation. Ms. Bettman thought that the program had economized, as evidenced from the fact the program had not experienced a fee increase in more than 10 years. During that time, the community had grown in population but the program had the same budget. She believed there would be more concern about the program during the wet season when people were worried about flooding. She thought that Mr. Pap8 had made a good argument recently for the program by pointing out that there was a time when there were no salmon in the part of the river adjacent to the city, and now salmon were being caught near Valley River Center. She thought the Stormwater Program was partially responsible for that fact. She said that the program enjoyed considerable public support and should be funded. Ms. Taylor agreed with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman. Mr. Kelly agreed that all programs should be asked to be efficient but pointed out that there was no reduction to either police services or fire services during the recent budget review process. While he did not disagree with that decision, he thought adequate funding for flood control, public health, and water quality was also important. Ms. Bettman noted that the Stormwater Program differed from programs such as the City's transportation program in that it had only one source of funding, through fees, so the department could not reprioritize expenditures and find money from other places. The motion failed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to implement Scenario 2. Mr. Meisner said that the City needed to find ways to deliver services in a cost-effective way. For example, he cited the costs of the river clean-up, which had more than tripled in the last year. He said there had been no fee increase in ten years because the fee was set too high initially, and reserves had been built to the point where the council had directed staff to spend the reserves on acquisition, a decision which he still questioned. Ms. Bettman stressed the link between the program and water quality, and said that reducing the program at this time was anti-environmental and signaled that the council did not care about the quality of the water. She thought that a big mistake, given that natural resources made Eugene unique and livable. Ms. Bettman said there was no public outcry regarding the fee. The council's discussion had been generated by the development industry. She thought reducing the program would have a dire impact on the quality of the community's water. Ms. Taylor said that reducing the program also affected the health of children in the community. The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voted no. MINUTES -Eugene City Council August 11, 2003 Page 7 Work Session