My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A - Minutes Approval
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 04/11/05 Mtg
>
Item 3A - Minutes Approval
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:07:31 PM
Creation date
4/7/2005 8:39:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/11/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
State Fire Marshal, the City of Eugene Fire Marshal, and the City of Eugene Wastewater Division, which <br />he opined was enough regulation. He said the proposed ordinance struck him as a parasitic bureaucracy <br />that was mounted on the backs of small business, adding that big businesses seemed to get tax breaks <br />while small businesses got more regulation, which was unfair. He said if his company became subject to <br />the new provisions, he would endeavor to move his business, which supported a $700,000 annual payroll <br />out of Eugene. <br /> <br />Vivian MacKenzie, 2806 Country Lane, worked at a small research company that would fall under the <br />proposed amendment. She expressed concern that smaller companies that may have to report did not have <br />the resources for security guards and security systems to ensure their chemicals were protected from <br />illegal drug manufacturers. She stated that the City's website did not have the ability to track who logged <br />on to and used the database that listed chemicals stored at various sites. Her second concern was the <br />reporting burden on smaller businesses. Small businesses were already regulated by the State and City <br />Fire Marshals, City of Eugene Wastewater Division, DEQ and EPA, and had neither the time nor <br />resources for such an extensive reporting program that did nothing to regulate the amount of chemicals <br />that went into the environment but was only a tracking system. <br /> <br />Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, stated <br />that the Chamber opposed the ordinance primarily on the basis that, unlike previous ordinances that were <br />necessary to implement the Toxics Right-to-Know Program in the Charter amendment, there was no <br />aspect of the ordinance that was required by local or State law to implement the current program. He <br />added that manufacturers would continue to file reports and the public would continue to have full access <br />to those reports. Mr. Connolly asserted the ordinance had nothing to do with fee inequities, but <br />everything to do with subjecting more businesses in Eugene to more costs and regulations, both of which <br />would put them at a distinct competitive disadvantage with businesses located outside the city. He said <br />that the costs and burdens to the small businesses were only magnified when a local news story said that <br />fewer than ten requests had been received by the Eugene Public Library to see printed reports from the <br />current program. Divided over the cumulative total of taxpayer general funds, business fees and costs of <br />compliance, and City legal expenses incurred because the original charter amendment violated State law, <br />the estimated cost of each request to view the reports at the library was over $100,000. He concluded by <br />saying that the ordinance contradicted the letter and spirit of the categories of businesses that were <br />required to report or pay fees in the Charter amendment. The ordinance would expand the program from <br />large manufacturers as intended by the voters to now cover something entirely different, such as the <br />YMCA fitness center. Mr. Connolly asked the council to follow the advice of the City Manager, noting <br />that the proposed ordinance amendments allowed the problem of fee inequity to be much more <br />complicated than needed. <br /> <br />David Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said he was <br />unsure of the objective of the proposed ordinance. In addition to financing a City Charter-mandated <br />program in an equitable fashion, some viewed the proposed ordinance as an opportunity to expand the <br />Toxics Right-to-Know Program in rather profound ways. If the objective was to finance the current <br />program, all of the attention was on revenues and not on expenses. If the current budget for the Toxics <br />Right-to-Know Program was $100,000, the bulk of the money in wages and benefits, perhaps the program <br />itself should be reviewed. He said the number of companies required to report had remained largely <br />unchanged since the inception of the program in 1996 and those 40 companies were familiar with the <br />program reporting requirements. He stated that the Toxics Board audited approximately one-third of the <br />reports annually. He said one way to achieve greater fee equity would be to lower fees paid by companies <br />that were currently required to pay fees, thus maintaining the original intent of the Charter while reducing <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 12 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.