CC Minutes - 01/17/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

comprehensive by some. Mr. Bj~rklund said that the community's cooperative approach, as reflected by the MECT, were being discussed by the regulatory agencies as a good approach. He said that the courts would be the factor that would most likely make the regulatory climate change direction. He did not think the State or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would change direction. Mr. Bj~rklund said that the community was not the fastest moving community, staff was also watching what other cities were doing to see what works. He believed that the community's past work in addressing wetlands and stormwater issues had put it a long way down the road toward compliance with the NMFS rules. Mr. Johnson reminded the council that its goals were no further degradation of salmon habitat and that habitat restoration occurred; staff believed that approach was more than the minimum, and consistent with the sentiment of a majority of citizens and the council. He added that the City would always be a target if someone was interested in filing a lawsuit simply because it was the municipality. If the City did more than the minimum required, the City's counsel would have more ability to fight a lawsuit were one filed. City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the issue differed from the telecommunications issue in that the City was acting to protect itself from liability. Ms. Nathanson suggested that while the City might not be a legal target, it could be a political target. Mr. Klein pointed out that Eugene was no different than other communities trying to determine how to respond to the listing. Mr. Bj~rklund noted that a survey conducted by the Willamette Urban Watershed Network indicated that the 30 cities responding were undertaking the same types of activities as Eugene- Springfield. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about why there were two separate assessments proposed, Mr. Bj~rklund clarified that the earlier assessment examined internal City operations, not regulations. James ©llerenshaw of the Public Works Department indicated that the earlier assessment was slightly behind schedule and should be available in approximately one month. Mr. Kelly said while he shared Mr. Meisner's belief in the importance of community education, he understood the need to take action because of the liability issue. For that reason, he expressed dismay by the slip in the schedule, particularly since the subject was a work plan item associated with the City Council's goals and the initial target was August 2000. The time line target was now August 2001. Mr. Bj~rklund explained that the project time line was closely tied to the federal time line for issuance of the protection rules. Those rules were not signed until June 2000. Mr. Kelly questioned why the council was told in May 2000 the work would be done by August. He suggested that the progress report on the goals document be more thoroughly vetted before the council received it. Ms. Bettman asked about the local availability of consultants to do the work proposed, and how many such firms there were. She asked if the money being requested in the supplemental budget was allocated to other uses now. Given that the assessment proposed was an office-based study, she questioned how the consultant would know whether there were regulations having an unanticipated effect that might create a liability, or if there were regulations not being consistently enforced. Since it appeared to her that much of the consultant's work was based on input from staff and legal counsel, Ms. Bettman questioned why a consultant was needed. Mr. Bj~rklund reiterated that the expertise to do the work was not available on staff. Eugene has no dedicated ESA staff. He said that the issue involved was heavily science-based, and NMFS is a very MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 5 Work Session