Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Connolly acknowledged that the City had to comply with the community right-to-know legislation, but <br />asserted the issue was whether what was proposed was realistic. He alleged that a company seeking an <br />exemption would go through the process, incurring the cost of consulting and reports, but that the Toxics <br />Board decision was ultimately a political decision requiring six out of seven votes. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey opened the floor for questions from the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked legal counsel to respond to Mr. Connolly's statement that there were companies <br />required to pay fees that did not have to report. City Attorney Katheryn Brotherton responded that this <br />question spoke to the ambiguity of the statute and what the law modified. She felt it was something that <br />was difficult to analyze as it was an ambiguity of the law. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said he was unlikely to take action at the present meeting given this response from legal <br />counsel. He also questioned the reasonableness and feasibility of the six out of seven vote requirement and <br />its irrefutable finality. He requested a copy of the Toxics Board minutes at which the changes in the <br />handbook were approved. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman asked if the Toxics Board had unanimously voted for the changes to the handbook. Mr. <br />Potter responded that they had been approved by a vote of 5:2, and the two dissenting votes were cast by <br />~right-to-know' representatives. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman inquired whether there were opportunities for interested parties to address the board. <br />Mr. Potter stressed that the board always provided opportunities for the public to speak. He added that the <br />business representatives did a fine job of representing business interests in the community and commended <br />them for their statesmanship in helping to reach this compromise. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman indicated that she was amenable to delaying the action pending legal input. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly concurred that action should be postponed. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ asked, then, if the legal interpretation was that companies were made to pay, though not <br />required to report. Ms. Brotherton affirmed that, based on the Court of Appeals ruling in 1999 that said <br />the City could not charge fees based on quantities of chemical used, 32 non-reporting companies were now <br />paying a fee. She clarified that the non-reporting companies were not allowed to request an exemption <br />based on the proposed process before the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Brotherton said there was a concern that allowing companies to be exempt from just the fee would <br />undermine the general fee structure process set up in response to the court ruling. She added that <br />exempting half of the companies from paying the fees, the companies that were not subject to the rules <br />requiring reporting, would undermine the entire program. She related that during the discussion on the <br />creation of the exemption, the majority of the board had opposed exempting such companies. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2003 Page 7 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />