CCAgenda-4/12/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She opined there was no way to realistically assess the damage to humans caused by a spill. She voiced her support for the continued use of fees paid by businesses to support the program. Ms. Wilday registered her opposition to the State cap on fees to larger businesses. Jim Gibson, 3350 South Lambert, said he was a local businessman and participant in the program. He called the program flawed as it discriminated by only charging businesses with ten or more employees and a Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of 2000 to 3000. He asserted that many businesses took raw materials and transformed them into something else, but did not have the SIC rating, and that many businesses used disproportionately large amounts of chemicals, but did not have ten or more employees. Mr. Gibson stressed that his business manufactured stormwater pollution protection devices that were installed in the catch basins in parking lots. He related that his business was on the cutting edge of filtration devices and that he worked with both the cities of Eugene and Springfield and others. He commented that he was environmentally concerned. He noted that businesses pay a hazardous substance fee and are governed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He felt this level of regulation to be adequate. He opined that the Toxics Right-to-Know fee was a "double whammy." Bob Cassidy, 1401 East 27th Avenue, commented that he was intrigued with the idea of having more people involved in the program. He felt the concept of requiring businesses with ten or more employees to report was likely an arbitrary decision made by a committee. He thought it should be expanded to encompass smaller businesses as there would be more reporting and possibly more violations found. He noted that firefighters were killed in the process of putting out a fire in Coos Bay during 2003 and stressed the importance of knowing what sorts of toxic substances were in a building. He asserted a lack of such knowledge could lead to greater liability on the part of the City. Jan Spencer, 212 Benjamin Street, averred the discussion should be on eliminating pollution. He was troubled by all of the pollution in the area, calling it "fairly typical of industry" nationwide. He felt pollution exacted a public health cost that affected the entire society and to leave businesses unaccount- able was to subsidize business. He called it shameful that so much of the nation's economy was devoted to "cleaning up the mess" left by industry. Mr. Spencer commented that he had collected over 500 signatures to put the Toxics Right-to-Know initiative on the ballot. He opined returning it to the ballot would be a betrayal of the voters. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, conveyed the opposition of the Chamber of Commerce to the fees recommended to operate the Toxics Right-to-Know program in 2004. He urged the City Council to oppose them. He said continued opposition was based on usage of a quantity-of-hazardous-substance- used funding formula, which he alleged the State law did not allow. He felt the program was taking liberties with the City Charter by charging fees to approximately 30 companies that were never part of the program and are not part of the reporting program. He averred the $2,000 cap was not a bargain to larger employers and called the fee changes a "shift from one funding inequity to another." He asserted that the original intention of the program were no longer possible. He commented that, whether the council supported the program or opposed the program, the council should consider how long it intended to sustain the program with fees that were allegedly not authorized by voters and by a formula that allegedly was not authorized by State law. He asked the council to consider whether a fee increase of 125 percent would produce a 125 percent increase in benefit. Mary O' Brien, 3525 Gilham Road. said there were two key elements of the Toxics Right-to-Know law Page 11