CC Minutes - 10/13/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

charter amendment were invalidated by the Appeals Court decision. He said that the process should not be a lengthy one. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City's program was additive or cumulative to other programs or totally separate, requiring entirely different reporting. Mr. Potter said Eugene's program was unique in that it included a materials balancing accounting component and no other programs had such a requirement. Companies are required to report their inputs and outputs of hazardous substances in specific categories so those totals balance for each chemical. He said that there was overlap with other programs as to the chemicals reported. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City had attempted to combine requirements to reduce the reporting burden. Mr. Johnson said the charter amendment established the nature of the program, and neither the City Council or staff could change it. Mr. Pap8 asked if anyone had done a study to determine whether there was a relationship between the number of persons employed by a company and that company's toxic output. Mr. Potter said no. He concurred with a statement by Mr. Pap8 that the voters probably intended those who used the most chemicals to pay the most, but added that the Appeals Court had now ruled that the voters' intent was at odds with State law. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks. He was not interested in an option that included General Fund support. He said that the number of employees was not a perfect correlation to use but was as fair as could be devised at this point given the existing State law and the Appeals Court decision. He hoped that citizens would work for legislative candidates who respected local government's wishes. Mr. Rayor said the fact that the program was the result of a charter amendment gave it a much higher priority for him. He said that to keep the trust of the voters the council should stay close as possible to the intent of the voters. For that reason, he supported Option 1. He thought the board had done as a good a job as possible in trying to meet the spirit of the amendment. Mr. Lee did not think that the council had a choice given the language in the charter amendment, and said he would support Option 1. Mr. Torrey said that several companies had indicated to him that they would sue over the fee structure. He recalled debate about the issue when the charter amendment was initially placed on the ballot. He had not believed the program should have instituted by a charter amendment but instead should have been established by ordinance because then it would have been easier to make small needed changes. However, Mr. Torrey said that the voters were in support of the toxics right-to-know law and he had supported the program because of the principle of local control. Nonetheless, he did not think legislative relief was in sight. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Lidz confirmed that the basis of the fee could be changed in the future. He added that the charter amendment was not valid under State law insofar as it incorporates a quantity threshold for fees, although that quantity threshold was valid for the purpose of reporting. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Lee that the council had no choice but to adopt Option 1 if the charter was being interpreted correctly, or seek a charter change. Mr. Lidz said that the court decision MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m.