Laserfiche WebLink
Nathanson suggested that, given the fact the PeaceHealth issue was unresolved, the need for <br />transportation funding, and the general uncertainty about the economy, now was a bad time to <br />impose the program. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor favored proceeding with the study recommendations, particularly those related to the <br />Tier I/Tier II acquisitions. She preferred a combined user fee/SDC funding approach. She agreed <br />with Ms. Nathanson that people would not be happy with another fee, particularly given public <br />unhappiness about the yard debris fee. People were not sufficiently informed before the council <br />decided on that fee. Ms. Taylor said that the City had a large amount in the Stormwater Fund <br />already and suggested that it be used to underwrite the acquisition costs. Mr. Johnson indicated <br />that the beginning cash balance in the fund was approximately $7 million, although much was <br />earmarked for projects. Ms. Taylor thought that the connection to Stormwater Fund dollars was <br />logical and appropriate. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said protection of the waterways may be occurring in the south hills, but flooding <br />occurs in the flatlands. It was the City's responsibility to manage the stormwater to reduce that <br />flooding, and the proposal provided a proactive way to do so effectively. She said that those who <br />pay the fee could reduce their fee by reducing their impervious surface; that benefited the <br />community at large by reducing flooding and pollutant runoff. She appreciated the work that went <br />into the study. She agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments regarding Mr. Lyle's contributions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked the difference in management from a development rights approach versus <br />outright acquisition. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked for information about a charge per-square-foot for commercial rates. <br /> <br />Mr. Bingham discussed the development rights approach, saying that from the standpoint of <br />making things work, it worked best through a conservation easement, which removed questions <br />related to land use. Property owners could still count the acquisition area in development <br />proposals for open space credit, for example, and in computing the total number of dwelling units <br />that could be located on a site. From the City's point of view, conservation easements clouded <br />things somewhat. City maintenance staff indicated that headaches related to management went <br />down with a fee title approach, which made ownership status clear between the City and private <br />property owners. Many of the properties in the south hills were relatively undeveloped, with low <br />maintenance costs. Mr. Binghman thought that the conservation easement approach would work <br />to the benefit of both the property owner and City in areas where the main objective was <br />conservation versus intensive drainage management. <br /> <br />Mr. Corey did not have information about commercial versus residential rates at hand. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Johnson said that the council would have to <br />give staff direction to proceed with condemnation if a property owner was not willing to sell. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />