CC Minutes - 02/14/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

charter amendment, and supported the proposal. He did not want to put the charter amendment before the voters again, or use General Fund moneys to support the program. Mr. Kelly asked why an ordinance was being employed to pass the 2000 fees rather than a resolution as was done in 1999. Mr. Klein said the charter imposed the fee on a certain group of businesses, and the board's recommendation would mean companies not otherwise covered by the charter would be required to pay the fee. As the charter does not provide a basis to charge the fees, an ordinance was required; the resolution merely set the amount. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Klein said that the ordinance did not amend a section of the existing code and that was not uncommon. He said that the code could be amended to include a new section heading. Mr. Kelly said that it would make it easier for people to find information on the Web site. Mr. Klein said that he would follow up with fellow counsel to find out why the ordinance was drafted not to amend the code. Mr. Kelly noted his agreement with the remarks made by Mr. Meisner, saying that the City had been left no options by the courts and State legislature and all that remained was to stay as close to the intent of the charter amendment as possible. He said that he wanted to revisit the issue of the quantity-based fee with the 2001 State legislature. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the need for consistency between the Standard Industrial Code (SIC) numbers in the charter amendment and in the ordinance, Mr. Potter said that it would not hurt to be consistent, adding that the SIC codes were four-digit numbers divided into larger categories designated by two-digit numbers. Responding to a follow- up question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Potter clarified that the codes were specific to what a business was doing rather than the type of chemicals used. Mr. Farr argued for sending the charter amendment back to the voters because the section struck down by the courts was so significant to the implementation of the amendment. He thought the courts' rejection of the fee basis would have affected the way voters cast their ballots in the last election. He said the voters should be given a chance to have a say on the ordinance. He thought the council was acting irresponsibly in trying to interpret the will of the voters. City Manager Johnson reported that the plaintiffs in the court case that led to the nullification of the fee basis had returned to the Court of Appeals to make more arguments about other elements of the amendment. Mr. Farr asked if the City could avoid legal fees by placing the charter amendment before the voters with the new language in place. City Manager Johnson recommended that the board be asked to come up with a compromise and send it back to the voters. Ms. Taylor did not support sending the charter amendment back to the voters, saying that people had worked hard to get it passed. Mayor Torrey said while it was true the voters had passed the charter amendment, he questioned whether the vote would be the same given the changing language of the charter. He believed that the measure appealed to voters because they wanted to know what was in their air. Mayor Torrey asked if the council wanted to "win a battle, or achieve an outcome?" He thought the best way to achieve a good outcome was to ask the board to try to arrive at a compromise set of amendments to the charter for consideration by the voters. He said that there was no guarantee MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 6 Work Session