CCAgenda-3/10/04WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, commented that he was intrigued with the idea of having more people involved in the program. He felt the concept of requiring businesses with ten or more employees to report was likely an arbitrary decision made by a committee. He thought it should be expanded to encompass smaller businesses and there would be more reporting and possibly more violations. He noted that firefighters were killed in the process of putting out a fire in Coos Bay during 2003 and stressed the importance of knowing what sorts of toxic substances were in a building. He asserted a lack of such knowledge could lead to greater liability on the part of the City. Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin Street, averred the discussion should be on how to eliminate pollution in the first place. He was troubled by all of the pollution in the area, calling it ~fairly typical of industry" nation-wide. He felt pollution exacted a public health cost that affected the entire society and to leave businesses unaccountable was to subsidize business. He called it shameful that so much of the nation's economy was devoted to %leaning up the mess" left by industry. Mr. Spencer commented that he had collected over 500 signatures to put the Toxics Right-To- Know on the ballot. He opined returning it to the ballot would be a betrayal of the voters. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the opposition of the Chamber of Commerce to the fees recommended to run the Toxics Right-To-Know program in 2004. He urged the City Council not to approve them. He said the continued opposition was based on usage of a quantity of hazardous substance used funding formula, which he alleged the State law did not allow. He felt the program was taking liberties with the City Charter by charging fees to approximately 30 companies that were never part of the program and are not part of the reporting program. He averred the $2,000 cap was not a bargain to larger employers and called the fee changes a %hift from one funding inequity to another." He asserted that the original intention in the program were no longer possible. He commented that, whether the council supported the program or opposed the program, the council should consider how long it intended to sustain the program by fees that were allegedly not authorized by voters and by a formula that allegedly was not authorized by State law. He asked the council to consider if a fee increase of 125 percent would produce 125 percent increase in benefit. Mary O' Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, said there were two key elements of the Toxics Right-To- Know law that Eugene citizens placed in the City's charter: MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2004 Page 3 Regular Meeting