CC Minutes - 10/10/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman referred to $64 million in user-fee funded capital improvements, and asked what percentage of the capital projects envisioned was needed to accommodate new growth. Ms. Walch said the $64 million was not the capacity-enhancing portion of the program. The entire amount was for restoration projects, new neighborhood water quality facilities to address runoff in already developed areas, and system rehabilitation. Ms. Bettman requested information about the cost of capital projects intended to serve new development. Ms. Walch said she would follow-up. Ms. Bettman asked what type of bacteria the City would study. Ms. Walch said the City measured fecal coliform, and e-coli. Ms. Bettman asked how long it would take to correct the contamination, and suggested the City should address it immediately. Ms. Walch said that bacteria were a very challenging issue and the City was working with other large municipalities that were working on the issue. Such bacteria were generally location-specific and she did not think it would require the entire three years for staff to identify the source of such bacteria. That would occur after the first year, followed by the application of best management practices. Ms. Bettman asked which waterways were contaminated. Ms. Walch said that the Amazon Creek and Amazon Diversion channel were water-quality limited and did not meet State standards. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a fis- cal year 2007 budget which includes funds for additional stormwater permit-related items; stormwater development standards; expansion of the stormwater monitoring program; up- grades for monitoring equipment; and a new three-year bacteria pilot study. Ms. Bettman indicated support for the motion. Ms. Bettman recalled that when the council cut the budget, it discussed how some of the funding could be used for stream corridor acquisition and space for green infrastructure. She did not see that reflected in the plan, and asked if that could be presented to the council as an additional option, supported by a 50 cent fee increase. Ms. Walch said that the need for additional stream corridors did not arise in the evaluation of the permit. There was some limited funding in the budget for stream corridor acquisition. City Manager Taylor said about $160,000 was accumulated each year, and the City also had a list of potential acquisitions, based upon willing sellers. He clarified that Ms. Bettman was seeking a change in the current service level that was not related to the recommendations before the council or the permit requirements. Ms. Bettman said that staff could “dust off” the old list and bring it back to the council for consideration. 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. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 10 Work Session