Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Hazardous Substances User Fees; Amending Sections 3.692 and 3.694 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Section 3.695 to that Code City Manager Taylor introduced Glen Potter from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, and asked him to briefly describe the proposed ordinance. Mr. Potter said the proposed ordinance before the council would add certain types of businesses to those that currently report and/or pay fees to the Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program. He stated he was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the public hearing procedures, noting that each speaker would be limited to three minutes. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, represented the Lane County Home Builders Association. Ms. Cuellar thanked Steve Johnson and David Monk of the Toxics Board for their willingness to work with the association, adding they had been very considerate concerning the association's issues. She stated that under the proposed ordinance, businesses that included painting, wall hanging and roofing contractors would be added to the program. Her first concern was whether those contractors qualified under the definition of hazardous substance users. Section 3.692 defined a hazardous substance user as a business that operated a stationary facility, adding that the Charter defined a facility as all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items that were located and operated on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites. Ms. Cuellar asserted that contractors operated nothing at a single site, but rather worked at job sites in numerous locations, and questioned whether they met the definition of a hazardous substance user under the Charter. She stated there were a number of unanswered questions around the ordinance because the original Charter amendment dealt with manufacturers, whereas contractors used finished materials. The ordinance did not address whether it applied to job sites the contractor traveled to outside of the city. She noted no one she spoke with was willing to take a definitive stand on the question. Ms. Cuellar noted that the ordinance did not address whether a contractor had to include materials in the reporting calculations that were purchased in Eugene but used on job sites outside of Eugene. Did the contractor have to include materials in the reporting calculations that were purchased and provided by the homeowners and applied by the contractors? Jim Dotson, 1668 Willamette Street, identified himself as a photofinisher. He stated that there was a problem with how the Toxics Right-to-Know ordinance viewed photofinishing, adding that, in general, he was very supportive of the measure and the right of people to know what was going on around them. He said he had been advised by Mr. Potter that there was an exclusion in the proposed ordinance for one-hour photofinishers. He asserted that although they used different equipment than those used by traditional labs, the chemistry used in the processes was identical, and opined that excluding one-hour processers was a misstep. Lloyd Dolby, 3820 Monroe Street, identified himself as a small businessman who conducted contract research for pharmaceutical companies, and made two materials for biomedical devices. The business produced the ultraviolet light absorber used in the synthetic lens used in cataract lens replacement. He stated that his business presently reported to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session