Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/10/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 10, 2005 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Papé. In the absence of Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President George Poling called the September 12, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. He noted that Mayor Piercy and Mr. Papé were out of the country on a visit to the City’s sister cities in Korea and Japan. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Ms. Ortiz had no items th Mr. Pryor reported that he recently attended the 35 Anniversary celebration dinner of Lookingglass Youth Services, and termed if a very good event for an excellent agency. Ms. Bettman said she was recently walking in the neighborhood where the Hallin Park subdivision was scheduled to be constructed. She expressed concern that the City signs alerting people to the new develop- ment proposals were very flimsy and had fallen down because of the weather. She recalled the council’s original discussion about the nature of the signs and said the signs being used were not stable enough or high enough to be clearly viewed. Ms. Bettman said she had reviewed the conditional approval for Hallin Park and was struck by the fact that th the subdivision included a special setback for future right-of-way acquisition along West 28 Avenue. She th asked to what degree the City was acquiring right-of-way along the West 28 Avenue. It sounded to her like th there must be a concrete plan to widen West 28 Avenue, and she asserted that was contrary to what City staff told her when the road was resurfaced and the lanes reconfigured. She asked if the City was pursuing th similar right-of-way acquisitions along West 18 Avenue, and to what extent. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman about the development notification signs. Mr. Kelly briefed the council on the final meeting of the Public Safety Task Force, saying the main topic of discussion was possible financing options. The task force spent considerable time discussing Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart’s proposal. Mr. Kelly credited Commissioner Stewart for his willingness to step forward with a proposal, which was to move existing public safety services outside the County’s General Fund and combine them with the task force recommendations and asked the public to fund the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 1 Work Session program with a one-percent sales tax that included some exemptions to mitigate the regressive nature of the tax. Mr. Kelly said the new sales tax would be combined with an 80 percent reduction in the County property tax rate. After discussion by task force members, 10 of 12 jurisdictions, including Eugene, supported Mr. Stewart’s proposal as well as an alternative proposal for a gross receipts tax on mid-sized and larger businesses. Mr. Kelly reported that eight of twelve jurisdictions approved the alternative proposal. He noted that Commissioner Stewart also recommended that the tax be enacted by ordinance for a three-year period, followed by a public vote that would lock in the rate in the County Charter if the voters approved the measure. Ms. Taylor read excerpts of a letter from a citizen arguing for the preservation of additional land in the south hills and maintaining that it was a regional issue rather than a local neighborhood issue. The letter writer also wrote that preservation of land would benefit future generations, and argued that citizens preferred to preserve land rather than see it developed as home sites. The land would be lost to the public as well as the wildlife that used it. Ms. Taylor agreed with the letter writer, and said she believed the City should preserve all lands that contained sensitive species and provided interconnectivity for water and wildlife. She noted the failure of a motion that she offered to the council the previous week that would have directed the manager to begin the process of a establishing a building moratorium on the site known in the Goal 5 inventory as Site E37. She said she had shared with the manager her disappointment that City staff “seemed to be working against” the motion. Ms. Taylor asserted that it was staff’s responsibility to say how her motion could be made to work, rather than saying “don’t do it.” She also thought that pointed out the failings of the City’s combined planning and development functions. Ms. Taylor believed the City needed a Planning Department. She noted that the council would later discuss the City’s stormwater program and suggested that the upper Amazon Creek already exceeded TMDL (total maximum daily loads) for pollutants because of existing development in the area. More houses would make it worse. Ms. Solomon had no items. Mr. Poling reported he received calls about increased criminal activity from residents living on Holly Avenue in Mr. Papé’s ward. He noted the work Mr. Papé and Captain Steve Swenson of the Eugene Police Department had done on the topic. He said he had shared with the neighbors that he would meet with City Manager Dennis Taylor on October 14, and requested a short briefing from the City Manager about the situation. He suggested that he, Mr. Papé, and the City Manager sit down to discuss potential approaches when Mr. Papé returned. City Manager Taylor thanked those who participated in the Sixth Annual Eugene Business Commute Challenge. He said that participation had been strong, spurred by high gas prices. He thanked City employee in particular, who helped the City secure top honors for participation by a public organization with more than 300 employees. City Manager Taylor reminded the council of the joint elected officials meeting scheduled for the next night. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 2 Work Session B. WORK SESSION: New Land Use Regulations and Ballot Measure 37 The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Director Susan Muir. Ms. Muir recalled the council’s adoption of an ordinance to allow the City to process claims filed under Ballot Measure 37, adding that as of 3 p.m. no Ballot Measure 37 claims had been received by the City of Eugene. She briefly overviewed the adopted process, which called for the City Manager to review submitted claims and make an initial recommendation to the City Council. If the manager recommended the claim be denied and no councilor disagreed, the denial would stand. If a councilor objected or the initial staff recommendation was not to deny the claim, staff would conduct an investigation and make a recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Muir said that during the development of the Goal 5 protection ordinance, staff considered Ballot Measure 37 as it applied to the new land use regulations, and developed a decision tree for a variance process that was modeled on the Type III process. Staff would make a recommendation regarding a claim to the Hearings Official with an appeal right to the Planning Commission. She said the commission and the council had both expressed concern about that approach, so staff worked on another approach that provided for the Planning Commission to be the initial decision maker, with the potential of an appeal going to the City Council. City Attorney Glenn Klein was also present for the item. He asked the council first to consider whether it wanted something in the Land Use Code outside the existing Ballot Measure 37 claims process, such as a variance process. If so, what would the criteria for such a process be, and what should the process look like? In regard to the first question, Mr. Klein suggested the City would be in a better position if it adopted something in addition to the existing claims process. Mr. Klein reminded the council that the existing claims process and ordinance were developed as a result of Ballot Measure 37, which stipulated that governments could adopt such a claims processing ordinance or provisions, but those procedures were not a prerequisite to a property owner going to court for a remedy if, after 180 days after a claim was filed, a regulation was still in force as it regarded their property. He said that some might argue part of the existing claims process could be enforced, but he did not know to what extent as those issues were just beginning to be litigated. Mr. Klein said that what staff was trying to accomplish was to make it clear that a height limit, for example, would not constitute a restriction on use for purposes of Ballot Measure 37 until someone went through the new variance process staff was recommending. He said that the advantage to the City was that the approach made it more likely that the City would be able to enforce the application requirements and get the issues resolved without the risk that, should the property owner eventually prevail, he or she would receive attorney fees as was the case in the Ballot Measure 37 claims processing ordinance. Mr. Klein suggested that, given that the staff recommendation was based on a desire to avoid creating new Ballot Measure 37 claims, the criteria should be tied to the measure. In other words, if a property owner did not have a valid Ballot Measure 37 claim, he or she would not be entitled to the variance. In regard to the process, he recommended that applications be directed toward the Planning Commission accompanied by a staff recommendation. The Planning Commission would make a decision on the application, which would be final unless a councilor or the mayor wished to review the decision. Mr. Klein further recommended that the proposed variance process be applied to any regulations, particu- larly new regulations, to avoid the unnecessary creation of Ballot Measure 37 claims. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Klein invited questions. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Klein said that staff did not recommend the council act as the initial decision maker because while the City had received no claims to this point, when the council adopted the Goal 5 protection ordinance several thousand properties would be affected, so it may receive several variance applications. Staff was attempting to avoid having the council deal with a claim if it did not wish to do so. He pointed out that if a single councilor wished to review the application, it could do so if within 14 days of the denial. Otherwise, the council would have to deal with all the applications. He did not know how many claims would be forthcoming once the Goal 5 inventory was adopted. Ms. Taylor believed the council was more responsive to the electorate than the Planning Commission and its actions were more in the public eye. She did not want the Planning Commission to make the initial decision. Mr. Pryor did not object to the Planning Commission making the initial decision given the council’s role as ultimate arbiter of the issue. He determined from Mr. Klein that the focus of the discussion was on potential Ballot Measure 37 claims. Mr. Klein said that staff was suggesting to the council that the process be one that would apply not only to the Goal 5 protection ordinance, but to any new regulations the council might adopt in future years that had Ballot Measure 37 implications. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Klein clarified that the staff proposal would allow a property owner to file an application for a variance from the Goal 5 protection ordinance. The property owner would have to state why the City’s action would reduce the value of a property and what they would like to do on the property. The City would review the application and the Planning Commission would make a determination to grant or not grant the variance. The City Manager would give the council notice of the decision. Speaking to the differences in what was being proposed and the existing process, Mr. Klein said in this case, the City would require the property owner to produce evidence to demonstrate their belief the ordinance would reduce a property’s value. He added that under the existing Ballot Measure 37 claims process, the City told property owners they need to state why they believed a regulation reduced a property’s value, but whether the City would be able to enforce that provision was unclear due to a lack of case law providing any precedent. He believed the inclusion of the variance process in the ordinance would put the City in a better position to place that burden on the applicant. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Klein said if a variance application was denied by the commission or council, the property owner could appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Speaking to Ms. Taylor’s remarks, Mr. Kelly said he would oppose the proposal if it required a council majority to review a commission decision, but was comfortable with it since a single councilor or the mayor could request such a review. The only difference he perceived between the proposed and existing process was the initial decision maker. Each process included council review. He asked about other substantive differences. Mr. Klein did not perceive any. Ms. Muir pointed out that in the existing process, the City Manager’s only role was in denial of an application. Mr. Kelly had no interest in a piecemeal process focused on different ordinances. He wanted something that was broader than the Goal 5 protection ordinance. Related to that interest was a question as to whether the variance should apply to new land use regulations or existing regulations and the implications of applying the variance to existing regulations. Mr. Klein said given the lack of any claims based on existing regulations, it made more sense to him to adopt a process limited to new land use regulations. He said that the council might encounter unintended consequences if it attempted to extend the variance to all the existing regulations. He suggested the topic was more appropriately discussed in executive session. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Klein confirmed that it was staff’s intent that the application would come to the council if a councilor requested a review, but the issue was one of timing and the State mandate for a decision within 120 days. Staff suggested the application go directly to the Planning Commission to compress the timeline. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Klein that when he discussed a variance, he was talking about waiving a regulation. She said that property owners still had the ability to file a legal claim under Ballot Measure 37. The City could not preempt the use of that option. Mr. Klein agreed, but said if the council adopted the ordinance and a property owner filed a claim, he would recommend to the manager that he deny the claim because the property owner would not be able to claim a restriction on use. A property owner would not know until they go through the process if the Goal 5 protection ordinance restricted their use of a property. Ms. Bettman said the variance sounded like a proactive preemption or automatic “opt out,” building a “trap door” into any regulation, Goal 5-related or otherwise. In addition, the City would doing some of the work for the claimant in terms of establishing whether they have a claim. Since the process needed time, if a property owner did not like the outcome of the procedure, there was less time for the City to respond. Ms. Bettman requested a comparative time line so she could evaluate that issue. Mr. Klein clarified that the 180-day time period established by Ballot Measure 37 would not start until the property owner went through the variance process. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if a property owner attempted to go through both processes at the same time. Mr. Klein said the applicant would not be able to demonstrate that the ordinance reduced the value of their property or restricted its use. Ms. Bettman asked what if the property owner proved that. Mr. Klein said the council would waive the restrictions or pay the money. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if a property owner wished to construct a second house but was restricted as to its location by a setback from the riparian edge. Mr. Klein said the issue would be determined in court by an appraiser’s testimony. If an appraiser stated a house could be constructed in spite of the restriction without a reduction in value, he believed the City could make the case there was no loss of use. He added that some economists and appraisers would argue that a property was benefited by the fact of the Goal 5 ordinance because others were precluded from building in the riparian area as well. Ms. Bettman asked if same appraiser could be required through this process. Mr. Klein said yes. Ms. Bettman asked if was possible the City could be at a disadvantage as a result of its adoption of the ordinance as case law developed and precedents were established. Mr. Klein did not think so. He said that staff envisioned a property owner would only qualify for the variance if he or she could prove 1) a restriction in use as defined by Ballot Measure 37 or 2) a reduction in value as that term was used in Ballot Measure 37. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling about the adoption process, Mr. Klein indicated that the variance would likely substitute for the existing Ballot Measure 37 variance language included now in the proposed Goal 5 ordinance and would remain in effect until the council adopted a broader variance process to apply to all new land use regulations. He said that adoption of a variance that applied to all land use regulations would require a public process before both the Planning Commission and City Council. That could possibly happen before the end of 2005. Mr. Klein said staff would include the text regarding the variance was included in the Goal 5 protection ordinance to ensure it was in place when the Goal 5 protection ordinance MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 5 Work Session took effect. It would be removed from the Goal 4 protection ordinance and placed in another part of the code when the more encompassing variance was adopted. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Klein envisioned that there would be a fee associated with the variance application as there was now with the Ballot Measure 37 claim application. Ms. Muir indicated that staff would establish a fee based on a cost-recovery analysis. Mr. Poling called for a second round of council questions and comments. Ms. Solomon expressed a concern that the City Council could be reviewing applications on a case-by-case basis, and if it was to do so, she wanted a set of rules by which each evaluation would be evaluated to avoid subjectivity about individual applications. Mr. Klein said the standards would be set out in the City Code, and the council would be considering applications using the same standards employed by the commission, except the council would have the ability to compensate a property owner as opposed to waiving the relevant regulation. He suggested decisions would be made on a case-by-case basis depending on the natural resource values of the property involved. Mr. Kelly was favorably inclined toward the ordinance as he did not like the text proposed in the Goal 5 protection ordinance and believed today’s ordinance proposal would give people an alternative way to file a claim in a way that might have advantages for the City. He also wanted to broaden the scope of the variance beyond Goal 5. Mr. Kelly also wanted the council to consider adding some of the provisions in the existing Ballot Measure 37 claims ordinance, like notice on the Web site, notice to the affected neighborhood, and the possibility of acquisition through eminent domain. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Klein that the minor amendments the council would consider did not have Ballot Measure 37 implications. She asked if any of the amendments would benefit a property owner by increasing a property’s value. Senior Planner Steve Nystrom could not say for certain but thought the amendments were sufficiently minor not to have a significant impact one way or another. Ms. Bettman asked for a specific answer to her question by the time of the council’s work session on the topic scheduled for October 12. Ms. Bettman said staff had not yet made a case to her as to the benefits of the variance. She said staff indicated the intent of the ordinance was to avoid Ballot Measure 37 claims, but she thought the City should act in ways that allowed it to continue to regulate land use through the code in ways that councilors believed were in the best interest of the public and to protect natural resources that really needed to be protected for the sake of water quality, for example. She said that mention of avoiding claims made her nervous. It brought to mind visions of the Planning Commission preempting regulations just to avoid a claim. She was concerned the variance would result in a wholesale preemption of the City’s ability to regulate. She thought staff was moving forward too quickly with the proposal, while work on the compensation fund had stalled. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a variance-type process consistent with the City Manager’s recommendation, and to incorpo- rate that process in the Goal 5 protection ordinance. Ms. Taylor indicated her second was for the purpose of discussion. Mr. Poling called for comments on the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Solomon and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly to add the following text: “and to later bring back language that would broaden the process to all new land use regulations.” The motion then read: Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a variance-type process consistent with the City Manager’s recommendation, and to incorpo- rate that process in the Goal 5 protection ordinance, and to later bring back language that would broaden the process to all new land use regulations. Mr. Kelly pointed out the council action merely directed staff to return with a process. At that time, he would be able to decide if he supported the process. Ms. Bettman did not support the motion because there was already a claims process in place. She was not convinced there was a reason for the variance or any benefit from it. The proposal “pivoted on a huge assumption” that the council would not lose its ability to consider such issues, and she maintained that the council “had been burned” in the past from its reliance on such assumptions. Ms. Bettman interpreted the variance process as placing more bureaucracy between the council and such decisions. She further objected that the council would have only two weeks to get the information it needed to properly evaluate a variance application. Ms. Bettman suggested the council would benefit by waiting for resolution of the issues surrounding Ballot Measure 37. She believed that the provision that one councilor or the mayor would be able to request the review of an application was significant, and pivotal to the decision before the council. She was afraid to rely on it as any ordinance in which it was included could be changed, although she acknowledged there would be a requirement for a public hearing for such a change to occur. Mr. Pryor asked if the adoption of the ordinance would result in less council involvement in such claims than currently existed. Mr. Klein said adoption of the ordinance would provide an opportunity for the same level of involvement by the council as currently existed, if a councilor decided to request council consideration of a Ballot Measure 37 claim. If the variance process was not adopted, the council would still be involved in claims approved by the manager. Mr. Klein believed the variance process gave the City more ability to require property owners to demonstrate actual reductions in value as a result of a restriction on use. Under the existing claims process, the City can request such evidence, but there was question as to whether it could require it. Under the proposed ordinance, he believed it could require that evidence to be produced. Mr. Pryor indicated that with that explanation, he would support the motion. Ms. Taylor perceived the proposal as placing the Planning Commission between the public and the council. She continued to object to the commission’s involvement in the process. She did not think that 14 days was sufficient time for the council to review an application. Mr. Klein responded that there was nothing magical about the 14 day time line or the Planning Commission. If the council preferred another time line, it could be accommodated in the ordinance. Ms. Muir said that one reason to involve the Planning Commission was agenda management if many such claims were received. Ms. Taylor averred that time after time, the council was told the Planning Commission had an over-full agenda. Ms. Solomon continued to have questions as well as reservations about the proposal, but agreed with Mr. Kelly that the council was merely directing staff to return with an ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly suggested that the council was confused as to the difference between the existing and proposed process. He said it would be helpful if the council received a table comparing the two ordinances in regard to the timelines and approval processes. Mr. Kelly pointed out that, with regard to the Planning Commission coming between the council and public, the manager did the same in the existing process. He underscored the effort the council made to improve the existing Ballot Measure 37 ordinance and said he would be examining the new ordinance carefully. He also suggested that staff produce a side-by-side comparison of the administrative rules for the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. Ms. Bettman was not confused as to the difference between the two processes, but did not see any benefit to changing the existing process; in fact, she saw downsides to changing the process. Speaking to comments that the council was merely directing staff to return with a revised process, Ms. Bettman pointed out the motion directed staff to do some very expensive resource-intensive work. She said that if councilors did not intend to support the ultimate outcome, they should vote against the motion. The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. C. WORK SESSION: Stormwater Permit and Program Developments City Manager Taylor reported that staff would highlight stormwater permit and program developments for the council. He recalled that the last comprehensive review of the Stormwater Program occurred in 2003, when staff raised some budget and fee issues facing the program. He said staff would discuss some of the developments in the existing service as well as in the permit renewal project and seek guidance as it prepared the fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget. The council was also joined by Peter Ruffier and Therese Walch of the Public Works Department. Ms. Walch provided a PowerPoint presentation, entitled Stormwater Permit and Program Developments. The presentation highlighted the impacts from the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued in March 2004, developments in the program that had future impacts, and options and recommendations for the future. Ms. Walch briefly noted the regulatory and policy basis for the City’s stormwater program. She recalled the council’s 2003 program review, impelled by a projected budget shortfall, and reminded the council that at that time it had reduced the program budget by $1.8 million to bring it line with revenues. The reduced program met the 1994 NPDES program conditions but there were uncertainties about whether it would satisfy the renewed permit. The reduced program also extended the timelines for meeting the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. Ms. Walch said that staff had evaluated the program in light of the new permit conditions. The evaluation validated core program elements, identified program gaps, and proposed program adjustments. Among the identified gaps with a fiscal impact were stormwater development standards; staff further recommended completion of a bacteria pilot study, expansion of the monitoring program, and the purchase of new monitoring equipment. The total cost was estimated to be approximately $307,000. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Walch highlighted program developments facing the City, including the need to reduce the TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) of pollutants in the Willamette River, development of water quality waterway protections, development of a stormwater basin plan for Santa Clara in conjunction with Lane County, and implementation of the stormwater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Ms. Walch recommended that the council direct staff to prepare the FY07 budget to include additional stormwater permit-related items. Mr. Poling opened the floor to questions. Mr. Kelly commended the presentation and packet materials. He said the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) mentioned the citywide policy related to pesticides and herbicides. He asked if that would apply to the City, other government agencies, the industry, or consumers. Ms. Walch said that it would apply to the City organization and would establish a consistent policy for the entire organization. She said staff found that the City had very good integrated pest management practices, but there were small differences between divisions and departments. Mr. Kelly requested a memorandum regarding the general public use or professional use of herbicides and pesticides in the community, and its relationship to the program established by the State legislature some time ago and only funded recently. He did not want to be redundant in regard to the State program, but he thought the issue had broader water quality implications. Mr. Kelly was supportive of the actions being proposed. He said he would be very interested to see the results of the protected waterways effort. He supported the option recommended by staff. Ms. Ortiz said she frequently received calls from constituents in her ward asking why they pay stormwater fees but received no stormwater service. She attempted to connect them to the appropriate staff. She wanted to know how many such residents existed, and what plans existed to get them “online.” Ms. Ortiz said she was generally very supportive of the program but would find that information useful. Ms. Walch responded that staff had met with the River Road and Santa Clara community organizations. The City would identify a long-term stormwater CIP and if the City or County was responsible for construction. Long-term issues related to the continued use of dry wells would also be addressed through that process. She emphasized staff’s interest in getting a lot of public involvement, and staff would work to keep those community organizations informed and involved. Mr. Pryor said it would be useful to know what would be paid for by the identified funding. He referred to the proposal for monitoring program expansion and equipment upgrades, and asked how that coordinated with the State’s reductions in its monitoring programs. He was if the City’s monitoring was coordinated with the State’s program. Ms. Walch said the local program did not compensate for the reductions in the State program. The monitoring done was what was necessary to satisfy the City’s own needs. Speaking to the proposed funding, Ms. Walch said it would be used to pay for three positions related to the development standards as well as needed equipment. City Manager Taylor said the staff recommendation came about as a result of the council’s decision to maintain the program within the current revenue structure as long as it met the City’s comprehensive policies and ensured permit renewal. As a result of the permit renewal, staff had identified specific gaps that spurred the changes recommended. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 9 Work Session 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 City Manager Taylor determined from Mr. Kelly that he was interested in having a discussion of whether the council should change the level of service currently being delivered through the stormwater program by accelerating the timeline for stormwater acquisitions. Mr. Kelly added that he would term it an “un- deceleration” given that the funding for such acquisitions was reduced two years ago. He thought a reexamination of the program was needed given community growth and the passage of Ballot Measure 37. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion by directing the manager to return to the council around January 1, 2006, with a Stream Corridor Acquisition Pro- gram analogous to that in effect before past reductions. City Manager Taylor indicated that what staff was recommending at this time involved expenditures needed to keep the permit; the acquisition program would be an expansion of that program, and the council could consider various alternatives, including returning to the program not implemented in the 2005 budget. He asked why the council would select a specific strategy in the absence of other types of improvements that could be secured for the same dollar amount. Mr. Kelly said that the specific strategy received considerable support in the past, and often such strategies needed to be put in place ahead of development in a particular area. He also thought Ballot Measure 37 was a factor that had not been in place before. Ms. Taylor recalled that a stream corridor acquisition program was adopted by the council but never implemented. She supported the amendment. Mr. Pryor determined from Mr. Kelly that the amendment would direct staff to return with a proposal for a reinstituted acquisition program, funding source, and implications of the funding source. Ms. Walch suggested a broader evaluation that included examination of the Capital Improvement Program would be in order. Mr. Kelly had no objection to staff mentioning that in the Agenda Item Summary, but his focus was on the acquisition program. City Manager Taylor urged the council to have a broader discussion before it moved forward to reinstitute the program. Mr. Pryor agreed that the council needed to consider the impact of the program as it related to the larger subject of the CIP, which could create many more proposals for the council to consider. He asked if there was a more organized, comprehensive way to approach the subject. City Manager Taylor said he would advocate for such an approach. If the council adopted the motion placed on the table by Ms. Solomon it would give clear direction to staff with regard to those program elements related to the NPDES permit. Staff would later return with information and recommendations related to the corridor acquisition issue. He thought the staff could do that by the end of the year. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council had voted for what she characterized as a “huge” reduction in the program, which she had opposed at that time. She said the City needed to get a start on a green infrastruc- ture acquisition program. Such a program was a discrete piece of a larger program, and it was a forward looking, sustainable approach. Ms. Bettman said continued focus on a pipe-and-fill strategy would preclude the City from building a green infrastructure. She wanted to move forward with a modest green infrastruc- ture acquisition program. Ms. Walch noted the City already had a modest stream corridor acquisition program; about $150,000 yearly was expended through the capital budget. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 11 Work Session Mr. Poling said the original motion addressed the fact the City needed to remain in compliance with its permit and new federal regulations. He favored having a discussion focused on the subject of the amend- ment at some point in time, but did not want to tie today’s decision to that discussion. He did not support the amendment. Ms. Taylor said the stream corridor acquisition issue was nothing new, and in her mind the council was only asking the manager to do what it wanted him to do before. She thought the program valuable for the purpose of maintaining community water quality. She pointed out that previously, the funding had been in place. Mr. Kelly clarified his amendment was not asking for the former steam corridor acquisition program to be reinstated, but rather asking for a discussion of whether the program should be reinstated at a later time. He agreed the issue was not tied to the agenda item but was raised because the council lacked a standing item entitled Stormwater Issues. He said that a new discussion would enable councilors who had not participated in the earlier discussion to receive the history of what occurred then. Ms. Solomon did not know why the council would want to have a discussion that did not encompass the entire CIP. She did not oppose having a discussion about the acquisition program, but she did not like the amendment because she believed it took the issue out of the context of the program and did not consider other equally effective approaches. She recommended that the amendment be amended to include a full discussion of those other approaches as she believed that she could then support it. Ms. Bettman opposed Ms. Solomon’s recommendation. She said that she was surprised to hear Ms. Solomon mention the need to consider the entire program as it was her recollection that Ms. Solomon had voted to reduce the program by $2 million. She did not think the council would support expanding the CIP. The motion to the amendment passed, 6:1; Mr. Poling voting no. The main motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Solomon voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 12 Work Session