Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey questioned whether the benefits from the proposal would equal its costs. He hoped <br />people did not perceive the proposal to be a way for the City to purchase land for parks and open <br />space use. He did not think that the people in north Eugene would be easily convinced that the <br />proposal had benefits for them, given the lack of acquisitions in those areas. He suggested the <br />public be asked to vote on the proposal. Mayor Torrey emphasized the need for education as the <br />key to the success of the proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said Ms. Nathanson and Mayor Torrey had already expressed his concerns. He asked <br />what happened to streams traveling outside of Eugene into the county, pointing out Lane County <br />was not proposing to take the same approach to stream protection as Eugene. He asked if, given <br />that, the City was acting prematurely. Mr. Johnson said that there was much less urbanization at <br />the urban growth boundary. After the streams left the city limits, State and federal rules took over. <br />Mr. Farr suggested that Eugene was taking rules and regulations and expanding them to limits far <br />beyond what was occurring around it. Mr. Corey reported that Lane County would soon be facing <br />its National Pollutant Discharge Permit System Phase II permit, and it may or may not address the <br />issue through that process. <br />Mr. Farr reiterated that he did not oppose the concept, but he urged the council to balance the <br />issues involved. He was worried the City was asking people to do too much and to pay too much. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the council keep the magnitude of the program to the user in mind. If the <br />council was considering a $5-$10 fee he would agree with the mayor's remarks, but he reiterated <br />the fee was 80 cents per month. In response to the mayor's suggestion, Mr. Kelly noted the other <br />fees administered by the City and asked if the council would go to the voters for approval of those <br />fee increases as well. Speaking to Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly thought that if the City did not enact <br />the program now, most of the Tier I/Tier II acquisition sites would be developed and the potential <br />for acquisition lost. He agreed with the need for education. He emphasized that the City was <br />proposing to pay fair market values for acquisition. <br /> <br />Regarding the increase in program costs, Mr. Kelly believed that the cost increase reflected the <br />recommendation to take SDCs out of the fee equation, not an increase in total program costs. He <br />concurred with Ms. Nathanson there would still be an increase in the direct costs to residents if the <br />fee approach was taken, as opposed to the combination approach. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly emphasized the stream corridors were not being acquired for use as parks and open <br />space for the south hills, but because they were needed for use as a natural stormwater conveyance <br />system. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the community benefit was flood management, filtration for pollution, and <br />protecting the community's larger waterways. She thought the proposal took the City a long way <br />in those directions. Regarding the concept of a public vote, Ms. Bettman said that the proposal <br />involved a stormwater conveyance system, similar to a road or other infrastructure, and said it did <br />not make sense to seek a vote in this situation unless the City decided to seek similar votes for <br />other infrastructure projects. She had been disappointed to hear the recommendation that SDCs <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 23, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />