CC Minutes - 02/14/05 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

his competition, saying his biggest competitor, while based in Eugene, had its crematorium in Springfield. His business would be subjected to higher fees and reporting overhead. Mr. Musgrove also expressed concern about the fee structure based upon the number of employees for what amounted to a part-time business of cremation. He asserted that the unfairness and uncertainty was harmful to his business, and the increased overhead would be detrimental to his client families. He asked the council to refrain from enacting the ordinance; an action that would make him contemplate relocating his business. Jennifer Gleason, 3241 Donald Street, was a co-petitioner of the original Charter amendment and a right- to-know advocate on the Toxics Board. The original ordinance was designed to make it fair and manageable to the participating businesses, and to provide information for citizens about toxic chemicals in the community without having to pay to get the information. As the program had been implemented, businesses using large amounts of hazardous chemicals paid a reasonable fee to support the program. Businesses that opposed the program had filed a lawsuit against the City of Eugene that resulted in the court declaring that the fees to operate the program could not be based on the quantity of chemicals used by a facility, resulting in the current fee structure that required a business that did not use any hazardous substance to pay the same fee as a manufacturer that used large amounts of chemicals. Next, the businesses lobbied the State legislature to impose a $2,000 cap on the fee paid by any facility. Currently, a small manufacturer paid more per employee than a large business, to cover program expenses. She asserted that the inequities were brought into the program by the regulated businesses. Rectifying inequities was very difficult thanks to the court decisions and actions taken by the legislature at the request of those businesses. She said the proposed ordinance attempted to remedy the inequities while reducing the per-full-time-employee (FTE) charge assessed against the businesses. Ms. Gleason said the original intent of the law was to gain information about toxics in the community, and stated that the proposed ordinance would help accomplish that goal. Noting that the proposal may not be the perfect solution, she suggested that the council look for ways to improve the draft ordinance and urged the council to listen to the speakers and come up with the perfect ordinance and support the Toxics Board's recommendation. Mary O'Brien, 1192 Lawrence Street, a co-author of the Toxics Right-to-Know charter amendment, and a six-year member of the Toxics Board, stated that the two proposals brought to the council attempted to minimize right-to-know funding inequities. The first was a small surcharge on commercial solid waste accounts, and the second was inclusion of additional hazardous substance users in the program. Both proposals provided a reduction but not elimination of the two fundamental inequities that industries created for themselves. Eugene's reporting businesses had completely blocked the ability of the Toxics Board to charge fees only to those companies that used 2,640 pounds of hazardous substances by claiming that Eugene's materials balance reporting program was the same as the State Fire Marshal's program. She asserted that the court's ruling was not appealed by the Toxics Board because it had been told that the court would defer to the State legislature. She added that the reporting businesses also blocked the board from charging only a small per-FTE charge to small businesses by going to the State legislature and asking for a cap that served only the interests of large businesses. She stressed that the only businesses that could end the inequities were those that had created those inequities by asking the State legislature to allow local jurisdictions to fund right-to-know programs equitably. She stated that the City Council should insist on the right of the community, both regulatory agencies and citizens, to be able to find out what toxics were released into the community and where. The City Council should send a clear message that its primary loyalty was to all citizens who were exposed against their will to toxic substances and who should be able to learn what and where those substances were. She concluded that if the council failed to act on either of the board's recommendations for minimizing the inequities created by the businesses, the business efforts to "choke" right-to-know would be rewarded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session