CC Minutes - 01/23/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

1. Continue to fund the acquisition program at the current level of $150,000 per year, or 2. Increase stormwater user fees by $0.50 and pursue a more aggressive stream corridor acquisition program Ms. Walch said staff recommended the first option as there was some protection for those waterways from Goal 5 and future stormwater program measures and there were other demands on the stormwater fund, such as maintaining the service level, permit related items, and future unknowns. Mayor Piercy called for council questions and comments. Ms. Taylor said her assumption was that any development near streams would add to pollution problems. Ms. Walch referred to the October 2005 work session during which the council approved conceptually staff moving forward with stormwater development standards. She said those standards, to be considered by the council in February or March, would address the water quality of runoff from new development and significant redevelopment. Ms. Taylor asked if the Amazon headwaters were already poor quality in terms of temperature and TDML. Ms. Walch agreed that some water quality standards were exceeded in Amazon Creek. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Walch said that an offer on the Beverly property had been rejected and, in the Nectar-Dillard area, an offer on the Joe Green property had been turned down. Ms. Taylor asked if the use of eminent domain had been considered. Ms. Medary said the policy was to work with willing sellers and the council would have to direct the use of eminent domain. Mr. Kelly remarked that the council approved in 2001 a program to acquire about 170 acres over the next seven years, of which 36 acres had been acquired to date, leaving well over 100 acres yet to be acquired. He noted that the proposed increase of two to three percent equated to $0.15 to $0.20 per month for the average ratepayer. He asked if there was a significant amount of biological difference between the 75-foot setback on each side of a stream in the corridor acquisition program and the 40-foot setback under Goal 5 protection. Ms. Walch said there was a significant difference in water quality functionality between a stream corridor that was 80 feet wide and one that was 150 feet wide. Ms. Solomon thanked staff for the explanation of existing protections on streams and said she would reluctantly support the staff recommendation of the first option. She repeated her concern about the City continuing to acquire property and remove it from the tax roll, thereby decreasing revenue to fund important services. She said that discussions about buying property never included a parallel discussion of what property on the City’s inventory might be given up. Mr. Pryor said the issue of maintaining water quality through the acquisition program was persuasive as was the need to maintain service levels. He said if he had to choose a priority he was inclined to support maintaining service levels because of the importance of ensuring that the current system was operating effectively. He said there was already an acquisition program in place, although perhaps not at the level the council would like, but it was a balance between acquisition and service provision and maintaining water quality. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 4 Work Session