Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon asked if the Goal 5 protections the City had discussed touched on the issue of stormwater quality. Ms. Walch said the City had identified stream corridor acquisitions that staff believed was important for water quality protection and the maintenance of existing water quality conditions and to the Goal 5 waterways inventory and determined there was about 65 percent overlap with respect to lineal miles. . There was a gap between what the stormwater staff thought needed to be protected for water quality and versus what the Goal 5 process had identified. That was the reason for the water quality waterways protection proposal. Mr. Kelly liked Ms. Bettman's suggestion of a parallel proposal for a modest stormwater fee increase for stream corridor acquisition. He asked if the maker of the motion would accept the proposal as a friendly amendment to the main motion. Ms. Solomon perceived the proposal as warranting a separate discussion. City Manager Taylor determined from Mr. Kelly that he was interested in having a discussion of whether the council should change the level of service currently being delivered through the stormwater program by accelerating the timeline for stormwater acquisitions. Mr. Kelly added that he would term it an "un- deceleration" given that the funding for such acquisitions was reduced two years ago. He thought a reexamination of the program was needed given community growth and the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by directing the man- ager to return to the council around January 1, 2006, with a Stream Corridor Acquisition Program analogous to that in effect before past reductions. City Manager Taylor indicated that what staff was recommending at this time involved expenditures needed to keep the permit; the acquisition program would be an expansion of that program, and the council could consider various alternatives, including returning to the program not implemented in the 2005 budget. He asked why the council would select a specific strategy in the absence of other types of improvements that could be secured for the same dollar amount. Mr. Kelly said that the specific strategy received considerable support in the past, and often such strategies needed to be put in place ahead of development in a particular area. He also thought Ballot Measure 37 was a factor that had not been in place before. Ms. Taylor recalled that a stream corridor acquisition program was adopted by the council but never implemented. She supported the amendment. Mr. Pryor determined from Mr. Kelly that the amendment would direct staff to return with a proposal for a reinstituted acquisition program, funding source, and implications of the funding source. Ms. Walch suggested a broader evaluation that included examination of the Capital hnprovement Program would be in order. Mr. Kelly had no objection to staff mentioning that in the Agenda Item Summary, but his focus was on the acquisition program. City Manager Taylor urged the council to have a broader discussion before it moved forward to reinstitute the program. Mr. Pryor agreed that the council needed to consider the impact of the program as it related to the larger subject of the CIP, which could create many more proposals for the council to consider. He asked ifthere was a more organized, comprehensive way to approach the subject. City Manager Taylor said he would MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 11