Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

advocate for such an approach. If the council adopted the motion placed on the table by Ms. Solomon it would give clear direction to staff with regard to those program elements related to the NPDES permit. Staff would later return with information and recommendations related to the corridor acquisition issue. He thought the staff could do that by the end of the year. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council had voted for what she characterized as a "huge" reduction in the program, which she had opposed at that time. She said the City needed to get a start on a green infrastruc- ture acquisition program. Such a program was a discrete piece of a larger program, and it was a forward looking, sustainable approach. Ms. Bettman said continued focus on a pipe-and-fill strategy would preclude the City from building a green infrastructure. She wanted to move forward with a modest green infrastructure acquisition program. Ms. Walch noted the City already had a modest stream corridor acquisition program; about $150,000 yearly was expended through the capital budget. Mr. Poling said the original motion addressed the fact the City needed to remain in compliance with its permit and new federal regulations. He favored having a discussion focused on the subject of the amendment at some point in time, but did not want to tie today's decision to that discussion. He did not support the amendment. Ms. Taylor said the stream corridor acquisition issue was nothing new, and in her mind the council was only asking the manager to do what it wanted him to do before. She thought the program valuable for the purpose of maintaining community water quality. She pointed out that previously, the funding had been in place. Mr. Kelly clarified his amendment was not asking for the former steam corridor acquisition program to be reinstated, but rather asking for a discussion of whether the program should be reinstated at a later time. He agreed the issue was not tied to the agenda item but was raised because the council lacked a standing item entitled Stormwater Issues. He said that a new discussion would enable councilors who had not participated in the earlier discussion to receive the history of what occurred then. Ms. Solomon did not know why the council would want to have a discussion that did not encompass the entire CIP. She did not oppose having a discussion about the acquisition program, but she did not like the amendment because she believed it took the issue out of the context of the program and did not consider other equally effective approaches. She recommended that the amendment be amended to include a full discussion of those other approaches as she believed that she could then support it. Ms. Bettman opposed Ms. Solomon's recommendation. She said that she was surprised to hear Ms. Solomon mention the need to consider the entire program as it was her recollection that Ms. Solomon had voted to reduce the program by $2 million. She did not think the council would support expanding the CIP. The motion to the amendment passed, 6: 1; Mr. Poling voting no. The main motion passed, 6: 1; Ms. Solomon voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session October 10, 2005 Page 12