CCAgenda-4/12/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman agreed the revision was an improvement in the absence of more precise distances. She pointed out that no one had objected to the word "along." Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Poling. He said proximate could mean near the river but not including it. Mayor Torrey said he would oppose the motion in the event of a tie. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Yeiter determined from Ms. Bettman that she wanted to retain the existing designation for the Westmoreland property. Ms. Heinkel indicated the issue related to UGB amendments would be addressed through the Metropolitan Policy Committee. C. ACTION: Ordinance Adopting Hazardous Materials Substance User Fees for the Fiscal Year Starting July 1, 2004 Fire and EMS Management Analyst Glen Potter joined the council for the item. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4867, an ordinance adopting hazardous substance user fees. Mr. Poling said he would support the motion at this time to honor the voters' will in regard to the charter amendment. However, due to court rulings and legislative action, he thought the fee schedule should be referred to the Toxics Board for further action. He wanted the board to examine the charter amendment and make a recommendation preserving the intent of the voters. Mr. Papd concurred with Mr. Poling's remarks. He hoped the community had learned a lesson about what it included in the charter and what was included in an ordinance to avoid the litigation and expense that had occurred. The intent could have been included in the charter, and its implementation left to the legislative process. He believed the Toxics Board needed to make a recommendation to the council regarding how the City could be more equitable in assessing the costs of the program. Ms. Taylor said the board had already given the council its recommendation. She preferred to expand the number of businesses that were covered by the program, and to reduce the employee threshold. She said the charter amendment was proposed because the program's proponents feared that the program would be eliminated if not in the charter. Ms. Solomon did not support the fee increase. She said the program was not what the voters envisioned and it was not fair to the companies being assessed or to the voters. Ms. Bettman agreed the program was not fair to the voters, but that was due to the fact that industry sought changes to the rules from the State Legislature. The fee cap was "bad news" for 44 companies and "good news" for the 11 largest industries that were responsible for creating the cap. The charter amendment stipulated the program would be supported by users of hazardous substances, not necessarily MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 6 Work Session