Laserfiche WebLink
Regarding cost, Mr. Bj0rklund reported staff was seeking federal grant money being passed <br />through the State for study of fish habitat in the metropolitan area. Staff would look at the habitat <br />to help it prioritize where the community could get the most results for the money spent. There <br />was also federal funding available for restoration work, and staff would work to tap those funds. <br />Mr. Farr acknowledged those funds, but believed they would be insufficient in the long-term, <br />forcing the council to turn to the General Fund. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted the City's success in lobbying for grant dollars in the past and said she did <br />not think the option under consideration necessarily obligated the City to reallocate local funds. <br />Regarding the availability of Stormwater Funds, Ms. Nathanson noted the relative lack of <br />acquisition activity with the use of those dollars and said she remained eager to see that funding <br />spent on property acquisition and the "hard scape" of stormwater needs as opposed to brochures <br />and forums. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the topic before the council was highly technical and largely political. <br />Decisions would be made in some cases on speculation rather than fact. <br /> <br />Regarding the limit on urban development, Ms. Nathanson questioned its applicability to Eugene. <br />Mr. Bj0rklund said that it might not apply. The City did have urban reserves that could be <br />planned for, such as the Royal Avenue nodal development. If in an area was primarily <br />undeveloped, the limit could apply. Staff would discuss that aspect of the limit in its response to <br />the rules. He emphasized the need to avoid take, and said that staff thought at this point, <br />avoidance of take was a lower bar than the option of meeting the requirements for a limit. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly complimented staff on its work. He suggested that the issue was much larger than the <br />health of the salmon. He said the health of the salmon was an indicator of the health of the <br />overall environment, which was an indicator of human health and subsequently the economy. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Farr's comments about the cost of preparing a work program, Mr. Kelly said <br />the City had no choice under federal law but to develop some kind of work program to avoid a <br />take. He noted the strong level of support shown by citizens in the recent community survey for <br />the City to do more than the minimum requirements to protect the salmon. He said that the <br />council would have a chance to review the budget numbers when the work program was done. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor voiced strong support for Option C. She said that the approach contributed to the <br />health of the entire community. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner favored Option C as the most reasonable response to the listing. He agreed with <br />Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the need to use Stormwater Funds for property acquisition. <br />He was less concerned about the cost of restoration than he was about the potential costs of <br />education and enforcement the program would require with respect to private activities the City <br />did not currently regulate. He looked forward to reviewing the work program developed by staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the use of legislative format to identify changes in <br />documents before the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if adoption of Option C gave Eugene the ability to allow large-scale urban <br />developments to occur that otherwise might not happen. Mr. Ruffier said no. Option C would <br />allow the City to start developing a program consistent with the limits established by NMFS. Mr. <br />Bj0rklund said that new urban development consistent with the proposed resolution could be <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 10 <br />Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />