Laserfiche WebLink
had invalidated that provision. The chemicals are proposed to be added to the City's list by <br />ordinance, which was not prohibited by the courts. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly termed the ordinance a housekeeping item, noting that the current list of reportable <br />chemicals was based on federal environmental regulations, and the charter amendment was <br />written to allow the list to be updated automatically based on federal actions. In response, Mr. <br />Potter said he would not entirely characterize the ordinance as "housekeeping," noting the 4:3 <br />vote on the Toxics Board regarding the issue. Three of the seven members of the board <br />opposed the addition of further chemicals to the list. Mr. Potter pointed out that the City Council <br />was not obliged to add chemicals to the list. Mr. Kelly asked about the source of the members' <br />objections. Mr. Potter said the vote reflected the composition of the board. The business <br />representatives were opposed to adding to the list because it added to the burden of reporting <br />businesses. He said there may be some feeling that the courts had given the City the message <br />to "stand pat" and a concern about the precedent set by adoption of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Potter said that the merits of the chemicals in <br />question were not discussed by the board. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked legal counsel to determine whether it was appropriate to adopt a stand-alone <br />ordinance or whether the ordinance should amend some part of the Eugene Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart supported the charter amendment passed by the voters. However, he believed the <br />courts had voided what the voters passed, so his support for the addition of further chemicals to <br />the list was not strong. He said that each time the council "tinkered" with the amendment it was <br />moving farther away from what the voters passed. Without a detailed study of the impact of <br />regulations, the City was adding to the cost of doing business or providing housing in Eugene. <br />He said that Eugene was already an expensive city for its residents, and the council should be <br />cognizant of that fact and not indiscriminately add to those costs. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart asked how much research the City did on the chemicals in question and the finished <br />products they added to. Mr. Potter said no research had been done by the City. The board <br />based its recommendations on the work of the EPA. Mr. Fart asked how many local companies <br />used the chemicals in question. Mr. Potter said that only mercury was reported by a company in <br />Eugene for 1999; none of the other chemicals were reported in 1998. At the state level, only <br />vanadium was reported in 1998. Mr. Fart wanted to know what finished products the chemicals <br />contributed to, and the impact of their addition on the businesses of Eugene. He was supportive <br />of the charter amendment, but unable to support the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ questioned whether the City's law required businesses to file multiple forms to multiple <br />agencies. Mr. Potter said yes. Mr. Pap~ asked if there was work going on to align the forms. Mr. <br />Potter said no. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner wanted to honor the voters' intention. The charter indicated that anything added to <br />the federal lists should be added to the local list. The courts invalidated that process, but <br />allowed the City to add chemicals by ordinance. Mr. Meisner hoped the City could make <br />reporting as easy and efficient as possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said the voters wanted a comprehensive toxics program that included a mechanism for <br />updating the list of toxic chemicals that must be reported. He said that the ordinance before the <br />council was consistent with the voters' intent. He supported the ordinance. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />