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
crematorium in Springfield. His business would be subjected to higher fees and reporting overhead. Mr. <br />Musgrove also expressed concern about the fee structure based upon the number of employees for what <br />amounted to a part-time business of cremation. He asserted that the unfairness and uncertainty was <br />harmful to his business, and the increased overhead would be detrimental to his client families. He asked <br />the council to refrain from enacting the ordinance; an action that would make him contemplate relocating <br />his business. <br /> <br />Jennifer Gleason, 3241 Donald Street, was a co-petitioner of the original Charter amendment and a right- <br />to-know advocate on the Toxics Board. The original ordinance was designed to make it fair and <br />manageable to the participating businesses, and to provide information for citizens about toxic chemicals <br />in the community without having to pay to get the information. As the program had been implemented, <br />businesses using large amounts of hazardous chemicals paid a reasonable fee to support the program. <br />Businesses that opposed the program had filed a lawsuit against the City of Eugene that resulted in the <br />court declaring that the fees to operate the program could not be based on the quantity of chemicals used <br />by a facility, resulting in the current fee structure that required a business that did not use any hazardous <br />substance to pay the same fee as a manufacturer that used large amounts of chemicals. Next, the <br />businesses lobbied the State legislature to impose .a $2,000 cap on the fee paid by any facility. Currently, <br />a small manufacturer paid more per employee than a large business, to cover program expenses. She <br />asserted that the inequities were brought into the program by the regulated businesses. Rectifying <br />inequities was very difficult thanks to the court decisions and actions taken by the legislature at the <br />request of those businesses. She said the proposed ordinance attempted to remedy the inequities while <br />reducing the per-full-time-employee (FTE) charge assessed against the businesses. Ms. Gleason said the <br />original intent of the law was to gain information about toxics in the community, and stated that the <br />proposed ordinance would help accomplish that goal. Noting that the proposal may not be the perfect <br />solution, she suggested that the council look for ways to improve the draft ordinance and urged the council <br />to listen to the speakers and come up with the perfect ordinance and support the Toxics Board's <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />Mary O'Brien, 1192 Lawrence Street, a co-author of the Toxics Right-to-Know charter amendment, and <br />a six-year member of the Toxics Board, stated that the two proposals brought to the council attempted to <br />minimize right-to-know funding inequities. The first was a small surcharge on commercial solid waste <br />accounts, and the second was inclusion of additional hazardous substance users in the program. Both <br />proposals provided a reduction but not elimination of the two fundamental inequities that industries <br />created for themselves. Eugene's reporting businesses had completely blocked the ability of the Toxics <br />Board to charge fees only to those companies that used 2,640 pounds of hazardous substances by claiming <br />that Eugene's materials balance reporting program was the same as the State Fire Marshal's program. She <br />asserted that the court's ruling was not appealed by the Toxics Board because it had been told that the <br />court would defer to the State legislature. She added that the reporting businesses also blocked the board <br />from charging only a small per-FTE charge to small businesses by going to the State legislature and asking <br />for a cap that served only the interests of large businesses. She stressed that the only businesses that could <br />end the inequities were those that had created those inequities by asking the State legislature to allow local <br />jurisdictions to fund right-to-know programs equitably. She stated that the City Council should insist on <br />the right of the community, both regulatory agencies and citizens, to be able to find out what toxics were <br />released into the community and where. The City Council should send a clear message that its primary <br />loyalty was to all citizens who were exposed against their will to toxic substances and who should be able <br />to learn what and where those substances were. She concluded that if the council failed to act on either of <br />the board's recommendations for minimizing the inequities created by the businesses, the business efforts <br />to "choke" right-to-know would be rewarded. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 14 <br /> Regular Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.