Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Taylor moved to amend Ms. Bettman’s motion by substituting $0.50 for <br />$0.30. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she was frustrated that the decision to increase the rate by $0.50 several years ago was <br />never implemented. She was also frustrated by discussion of compromising on water quality as that was a <br />necessity and not subject to compromise. She said it would be less expensive to take action now to protect <br />streams than to clean them up later. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked how DEQ differentiated between point source pollution and non-point source pollution entry <br />into the Willamette River and measures that were imposed on Eugene compared to farmers downstream. <br />Wastewater Division Director Peter Ruffier replied that DEQ had limited authority for non-point sources of <br />pollutants and most of those were handled through Senate Bill 1010 agricultural water quality plans or <br />under the Forest Practices Act. He said that under the TMDL process, limits on waste load allocations were <br />established but implemented through different programs. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to extend discussion by five minutes. <br />The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said it appeared that Eugene could be asked to cut back more than it was proportionately required <br />to if accurate measurements were not available for non-point sources. Mr. Ruffier agreed that was possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked how much in additional funding Ms. Bettman’s motion would represent. City Manager <br />Taylor replied that it would provide approximately $300,000 in additional resources to the stormwater <br />acquisition program, bringing it to a total of approximately $450,000 per year. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said she would support Ms. Bettman’s motion as she was disappointed that the City had not <br />moved more quickly to acquire waterways in the past. She asked if the increased funding would result in all <br />of the necessary properties being acquired within a certain period of time. She also asked if there were other <br />acquisitions that might be necessary in the future or if the City would eventually be able to reverse the <br />increase. Ms. Medary said that the timeframe for acquisitions depended on owners’ willingness to sell and <br />as long as the program continued on a willing seller basis it was not possible to predict when all acquisitions <br />would be completed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said while it would be good to have extra funds in the acquisition program he would vote against <br />the substitute motion because it was only money for acquisition and not for infrastructure or other service <br />needs. He thought there were still unanswered questions regarding easements versus acquisitions and <br />councilors did not know for certain how voters would react. He preferred to be cautious about raising fees. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon asked if eliminating the phrase “willing seller” in Ms. Bettman’s motion was intentional. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman repeated her motion and said that the issue of a willing seller was up to the negotiating team, <br />not her. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé asked if the increased funding could be directed primarily or entirely to acquisition instead of staff <br />costs. Ms. Walch replied that the staff costs associated with negotiations would still exist and was typically <br />about one-third of the total cost because of the amount of time. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 23, 2006 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />