Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr asked for an explanation of the user fee, and who were the users. Mr. Corey said that the <br />user fee appears on the water bill and reflected the user's stormwater use. He said that all citizens <br />were the users. Mr. Farr asked how much money the fee would realize. Mr. Johnson anticipated <br />revenues would be approximately $1 million annually. Mr. Farr recollected that the City tried to <br />get user fees passed by the voters to support affordable housing and there was insufficient voter <br />support. He said that the City Council needed to put the issue into perspective. The users were <br />the taxpayer who would pay for the program. He thought the study's recommendations were <br />admirable, but wanted the City to maintain a balance in the approach it took, noting the recent <br />court losses related to the City's regulatory approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked staff for its high-quality work on the proposal. He thought the report made it <br />clear why the program was desirable. He believed it was worth 80 cents monthly to the average <br />resident of Eugene to protect the stormwater going to the Willamette River. He thought the <br />acquisition program was more important because of the court decisions Mr. Farr referenced. The <br />open waterways ordinance was in limbo indefinitely, so it made sense to have some mechanism to <br />protect stream corridors for the benefits called out in the study. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the <br />point of Ballot Measure 7 was to make government pay compensation, and the program did just <br />that. For that reason, he did not think the recommendations were related to the court cases cited <br />by Mr. Farr. He thought the recommendations were responsive to the concerns voiced by Mr. <br />Farr. He also thought implementation of the recommendations would add in a small way to the <br />legacy of late City Engineer Les Lyle. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if there was a mechanism to bond against future stormwater fees. Mr. Johnson <br />thought it was possible. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson said bonding was one method to <br />accelerate the acquisition process. There were other ways to use existing resources that may be <br />less expensive. Staff could continue to explore those options, which it had already begun to <br />discuss. A revenue source to pay back those funds was needed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that all kinds of alarm bells went off in her head when she read the plan. She <br />had initially supported the concept inherent in the study. It would be a wonderful benefit for <br />people living near the stream corridors in the south hills, and it would also provide clean water <br />benefits and habitat values. However, she believed there were people throughout the community <br />who were getting irritated with the City Council over a variety of topics. She had concluded that <br />this was a dangerous time to impose a new fee of this size. She said that the program would <br />impact everyone in the city and should have been reviewed by other bodies in addition to the <br />department advisory committees. She believed that the proposal should have first been reviewed <br />by the Budget Committee before it was forwarded to the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about the increase in costs over the initial program estimates. <br />She noted the political atmosphere that currently exists, specifically referring to concerns expressed <br />by residents regarding the method of funding the yard debris program. She said the City made a <br />serious strategic error in imposing that fee before it discussed the rate adjustment issue; she <br />thought the costs could have been offset or paid for if the rates were consolidated earlier. Ms. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />