Laserfiche WebLink
EWEB, the change might or might not be controversial. He said that it depended on what the <br />council wanted to do with it. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Tollenaar for the clarification. She thought that the last sentence was <br />something the council might have added if it had not been there already. She reiterated her hope <br />that all the council's votes on housekeeping items were unanimous. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said that the item arose from discussion between the Eugene council and the board. <br />He agreed that it was a noncontroversial item. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Bettman's remarks regarding the need for votes on the housekeeping <br />items to be unanimous. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />The council considered the "minor" amendments. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to refer the Citizen Charter <br /> Review Committee-recommended changes to Section 54(3)(A) and Section <br /> 54(3)(E)(5) to the voters as a minor amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Lidz said that the Court of Appeals held the City could not apply the two definitions or <br />portions of definitions that Mr. Kelly's motion placed on the floor. The court also held the City <br />could not apply the sections related to the definition of hazardous substances that included <br />pesticides as local pesticide regulation was precluded by the State. He said that there was <br />uneven treatment of the portions of the court's decisions, and he thought there was a good <br />reason for that. Mr. Lidz thought there was little likelihood that the courts would change the <br />doctrine that led the court to its original conclusion the two subsections could not be applied. <br />There was a slight chance that the State would reduce the way in which it regulated pesticides <br />so that the City could do what the charter amendment asked it to do. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not want to change the text of a relatively new charter amendment in reaction to <br />the court decision. She asked if there was a way to address the court decision through the City's <br />administrative rules or an implementing ordinance so the charter amendment text could remain <br />intact. Mr. Lidz responded that there was no good way to leave the amendment intact and <br />address the issue, other than not to enforce those provisions. That was what the Toxics Board <br />had been doing. The proposal from the committee was to take the subsection out of the charter <br />and establish a process for the council to add new chemical substances to the list of substances <br />to be reported to the City. That action would be taken by the council following a recommendation <br />from the Toxics Board each time a substance was added to a federal or State list. Ms. Bettman <br />said she preferred to follow the recommendation from the Toxics Board, which was a well- <br />balanced board with representatives from both right-to-know advocates and businesses required <br />to report. She opposed the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart determined from Ms. Bettman that she opposed the motion because she was deferring <br />to the recommendation of the Toxics Board. Ms. Bettman pointed out that leaving the sections in <br />the charter would not affect how the City implemented the law. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 29, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />