CC Minutes - 01/24/00 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Potter said that, subsequent to the Court of Appeals' decision, the City had received a declaratory judgment from the Circuit Court for Lane County. He said that the judgment gave the City the authority to fund the program as it deemed appropriate, so long as chemical quantities were not considered in determining the fees. Mr. Potter also shared a new proposal submitted by City Manager Johnson for consideration by the council. The new proposal would assess fees only to businesses doing the same types of manufacturing as the businesses that currently reported under the program. He said that the 10- employee rule would still apply, and that fees would be based on the total number of employees. He said that the new proposal would narrow the fee-paying population to businesses that might reasonably be expected to use toxic substances. He noted that the businesses assessed would be fewer and the fee per employee would be greater. Mr. Potter went on to say that neither of the proposals fully complied with the intent of the voters when the Toxics Right-to-Know Program was adopted in 1996. Mr. Potter said that if there were fees for the program, then there would be an ordinance required and a further public hearing would take place. In response to questions from Councilor Meisner, Mr. Potter clarified that the Toxics Board had not yet considered the new proposal from City Manager Johnson, and that the cost would be approximately $10-$15 an employee. In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Mr. Potter stated that any new fee structure adopted would apply to fees payable this year (to support the program in fiscal year 2001), although bills might not be sent out in time to meet the charter-provided payment deadline of May 1. Councilor Nathanson commented that the voters approved something that could not now be implemented. She added that neither of the proposals were what the voters had approved. She raised the question of putting the issue before the voters again. City Manager Johnson said that it was a policy decision before the council whether it wanted to take changes back to the voters or not. Councilor Kelly clarified that because of the severability clause in the amendment to the charter, even though the court struck down the clause for defining who paid fees, the rest of the charter amendment still stood as part of the City Charter and needed to be implemented until there was another public vote. He said that there were two ways to put the issue before the voters, which were by initiative and by a referral from the City Council. Mayor Torrey stressed the need not only for another public hearing, but for another council work session. Councilor Fart stressed the importance of following the directions of the public on the issue. He wondered if the amended language would still be passed in a public vote. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. Jan Wostmann, 2645 Riverview Street, stated his belief that the intent of the charter amendment was to create a fee-supported program. He said that the companies that used the toxic chemicals MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 24, 2000 Page 5 7:30 p.m.