Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lyle said that the wall display provided the council with a list of current staff work activities <br />and illustrated that there was little staff capacity to implement the proposed work plan. For that <br />reason, he recommended the use of consultants, or that something on the current work program <br />be dropped. <br /> <br />Mr. Lyle said that staff would seek the required funding of $250,000 in Supplemental Budget #1, <br />but wished to proceed in advance of that process using stormwater user fees. There may be <br />post-adoption resource needs but he was unsure of what would be required at this point. <br /> <br />Mr. Lyle invited questions and comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked how much money the Stormwater Fund has available. Mr. Lyle was unsure, <br />although he thought it was enough to fund the proposed work plan. Mr. Johnson determined <br />from Ms. Taylor that she was seeking information about the fund reserves because she believed <br />they contained a large amount of money to purchase land now. Mr. Lyle said that the council <br />could choose to use those funds for acquisition but it could mean other program elements may <br />not get implemented. Ms. Taylor said that the City may not be able to acquire properties in the <br />future as land was used for development purposes. Mr. Lyle acknowledged that was a concern. <br /> <br />Regarding the cost of green infrastructure, Ms. Taylor noted her interest in acquiring the <br />headwaters stream near the end of West Amazon, and asked what costs the City would incur if it <br />owned the creek. Mr. Lyle said that comments by the Stormwater Management DAC regarding <br />maintenance implications for the basin plans were more focused on requirements that would be <br />placed on new development as well as capital projects such as stream restoration, all of which <br />would be more costly to maintain. Ms. Taylor suggested that City acquisition of the creek could <br />reduce costs because of reduced pollution. Mr. Lyle said that there was a potential of that; <br />however, it would be more costly than conventional pipe. He stated that the staff worked with the <br />DAC to determine what level of maintenance was needed. He cited control of invasive species <br />as an example of a maintenance cost not incurred with a piped system. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor referred to the proposed community outreach program and asked how the cost of that <br />compared to the cost of other outreach programs the City conducted. Mr. Lyle said the program <br />would be very similar, comparing the program to the City's effort for the "no pipe, no fill" <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked questions clarifying the cost of the program and the sources of program funding. <br />Mr. Lyle indicated that funding would be predominantly from the stormwater user fee. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ asked if commercial and industrial properties would see a fee increase for a stream <br />acquisition program. Mr. Lyle said that the DAC has recommended a $500,000 annual program <br />increase, which included an increase of 18 cents per thousand square feet of impervious surface <br />area for nonresidential properties. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Lyle <br />clarified that multi-family developments were considered commercial. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ noted his previous interest in a matrix that showed how various City regulations and <br />plans impacted the City's inventory of buildable lands and asked if that was what C(6) in the work <br />plan was attempting to address. Mr. Lyle said that was part of the intent, but not to the extent Mr. <br />Pap~ was suggesting; staff would examine the current regulatory framework, and identify the <br />impact of acquisitions on the buildable lands inventory. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />