Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the expense to those companies that had to comply. He asserted the savings could be realized by reducing staff support, reducing hours for the program, contracting the services out to the private sector, or directing the Toxics Board to limit its focus on the current program as a way to reduce staff support. By considering a 25 percent to 50 percent reduction in budgeted expenditures, the council would respect the integrity of the program and do a great service to small business that would be wrapped into the new ordinance. Conversely, he said if the objective was to expand the program and include small, locally owned businesses, then the council should do so in a fair, deliberative, and transparent manner. He noted there had been no City outreach to impacted businesses related to this proposed ordinance. Patty McConnell, 1060 West 1 st Avenue, owner of a collision repair facility that would be affected by the proposed ordinance, identified herself as a small business owner who was concerned about environmental issues. She expressed deep concern about expansion of an ordinance that would negatively impact her business and other small business that were already heavily regulated by DEQ, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), EPA, and the State Fire Marshal. As a collision and paint facility, the business was also regulated by the insurance industry, and was not able to charge for services randomly. She stated that her business was not a manufacturing firm, but rather a small service business that repaired vehicles owned by private citizens. She added the business purchased products from a local company, and owned expensive state-of-the-art equipment that dealt with hazardous waste used in the business. Additionally, this green business recycled all hazardous materials and took its reputation as a responsible and concerned business quite seriously. She said the burden of the proposed ordinance would compound the overhead in an already highly regulated business and would negatively impact the economy in Eugene. Ms. McConnell opined that Eugene was under scrutiny as being very unfriendly to business in general, and she could identify with the concerns of small businesses that wanted to stay in Eugene but found it difficult to deal with the additional requirements presented in proposed ordinance. She asserted that if the City Council had the interests of the small business community at heart, the ordinance was not the way to achieve positive change. She questioned the validity of expansion of a program that could not produce solid evidence that it had met the objectives established in 1996. Contrary to Mr. Johnson's remarks in the guest viewpoint in The Register-Guard, reporting would not be quite as easy as he had said nor would businesses like hers benefit as he suggested. Aside from the added fees, additional expenses would be incurred compiling the required reporting information. She stated the number of businesses required to report would increase the administrative burden on the City, requiring additional funding. Coupled with the number of additional employees required by the businesses to compile reports, a bureaucratic nightmare would result. Ms. McConnell expressed concern that Mayor Piercy had publicly expressed support for the proposed ordinance prior to hearing public testimony. Jeff Musgrove, 1152 Olive Street, said he and his brother owned Musgrove Family Mortuary and Crematorium that had operated in downtown Eugene since 1883, noting that the crematorium had been installed about 25 years ago. He expressed concern about expanding the Toxics Right-to-Know Program and was mystified how crematoriums got on the expansion list. He said the crematorium was a natural gas-filled kiln, adding that no other chemicals or substances were used in the cremation process. Mr. Musgrove asserted that the emissions from the stack were monitored and regulated by LRAPA, and that the EPA considered crematoriums a low priority for regulation. A diesel truck put out 42 times more carbon monoxide than a crematorium; an automobile discharged 100 times more hydrocarbons; and a residential fireplace emitted 182 times the amount of dioxin and furan. He expressed amazement that this business would be targeted for higher fees, since crematoriums provided an environmentally friendly method for final disposition. He was concerned that expansion of the Charter amendment would impact his relationship with his competition, saying his biggest competitor, while based in Eugene, had its MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session