Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon believed there was a reasonable nexus between street trees, which must be watered, and the <br />City’s stormwater system. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked about the impact of the motion on the Stormwater Fund, and if an increase in the monthly <br />stormwater fee would be needed to address that impact. Mr. Corey said that residents would pay about 50 <br />cents more each month. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she could support the motion if the council would raise the stormwater fee to support other <br />important programs. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to increase the stormwater fees $1 monthly for the <br />average bill. There was no second. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor indicated that due to the failure of her amendment, she would vote against the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked how much of the Street Tree Program budget was devoted to planting trees and how <br />much was devoted to cutting them down. Mr. Corey responded that he could not give exact figures, but the <br />cost of removing trees was a small part of the budget; the vast majority was spent on tree maintenance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would vote against all the motions prepared by staff. She said that when one looked <br />at past CIPs, one saw “big expensive projects” where the funding sources changed over time from dedicated <br />funds to flexible funds, such as Surface Transportation Program or County Road Funds. She cited Chad <br />Drive as an example. Other examples were projects that were not in the CIP but came forward nonetheless. <br />Millions in flexible funding had been spent on new capital projects when it could have been spent on <br />operations, preservation, and maintenance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman believed the staff proposal was for an extraordinarily expensive road program. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said the memorandum prepared by staff regarding the CIP was interesting but it did not answer <br />the questions he had asked on September 26, which were reflected on page 8 of the minutes of the September <br />26 meeting. <br /> <br />Speaking to the motion, Mr. Kelly said that because street tree maintenance was, in the distant past, not in <br />the Road Fund, he could contemplate the shift being proposed. He clarified that implicit in the motion was <br />that the stormwater fee would be increased to cover the increase in costs, and the motion spoke only to the <br />50 percent funding. Any additional changes would require council action. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly indicated support for the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling suggested that rather than “nickel and dime” residents, the City reconsider and repackage the <br />TSMF, including the 50 stormwater fee increase, and send it to the voters for approval. Mr. Corey said the <br />answer depended on the council’s collective philosophy about how to provide services. He said there was no <br />reason the cost could not be rolled in the TSMF, which would then need to be about $6.5 million annually. <br />The down side was that there were those who feel strongly the concept of the TSMF was okay but only if it <br />was used to address the backlog of maintenance and if the work was contracted out. He thought a TSMF <br />would be best, but staff was trying to identify different services provided through the fund and strategies to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 15, 2006 Page 11 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />