CC Minutes - 03/09/09 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Ortiz asked if the bill had any relationship to providing additional state per student funding to schools. Ms. Wilson replied that the bill would not accomplish that on its own. Councilor Ortiz supported the urban renewal district as a useful tool for accomplishing the council’s goals for downtown. She said even if HB 2643 did pass, there was no guarantee of more funds for Oregon’s school children because of the state’s school funding formula. Councilor Taylor asserted that funds were diverted and even with the school equalization funding formula some students somewhere would get more money. She felt schools should have the option of not participat- ing and the tax money in an urban renewal districts could come from some other place. Councilor Zelenka explained that any dollars would go back to the state’s General Fund and the legislature would have to allocate it to schools. He doubted that would happen with the state facing a $3 billion budget deficit and allowing school districts to opt out of urban renewal districts would not increase their available funding. The motion passed 6:2; councilors Taylor and Brown voting no. 6. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Water Quality Waterway Provisions; Adding Sections 9.4770 through 9.4790 to the Eugene Code, 1971 that Establish a Water Quality Overlay Zone; Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.1040, 9.7055, 9.7205, 9.7305, 9.7820, 9.8005, 9.8025, 9.8030, 9.8055, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8415, 9.8470, 9.8472, 9.8474, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9.8855, and 9.8865 of that Code; Repealing Ordinance No. 20194 and Sections 6.650, 6.655, 6.660. 6.665, and 6.670 of that Code; Adopting the Water Quality Waterways Map; Amending the Eugene Overlay Zone Map; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date City Attorney Emily Jerome stated that the record for the matter was closed following the council’s public hearing in May 2008. She understood the council had just received email testimony concerning the ordinance from Barbara Combs. She said Ms. Combs had submitted substantial testimony while the record was open; however, unless there was a motion to reopen the record the email testimony was specifically rejected and would not be considered in the council’s decision-making process. Therese Walch, Public Works Department, explained that the ordinance was a waterway protection proposal that aimed to fill the gaps in protection on waterways of significance to water quality, and acknowledged the significant incidental protection provided by the Goal 5 natural resources protections adopted previously by the council. She said impetus for the protections could be found in the Clean Water Act, as well as local adopted policies in the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan adopted in 1993. She said approx- imately 13.5 miles of waterways would be protected, the ordinance would affect approximately 368 property owners within the city limits upon adoption and ultimately up to about 548 property owners, the difference being properties currently outside the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary that would be affected only upon annexation. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to adopt Council Bill 4975, an ordinance on water quality waterways protection. Councilor Clark commented that the council had just discussed street improvements and how they wanted to avoid affecting a minority of people unfairly. He said the ordinance was the same issue; it was a worthy MINUTES—Eugene City Council March 9, 2009 Page 6