Laserfiche WebLink
was now a group of businesses that was not required to file a report, but was required to pay a <br />fee. She said that was fundamentally unfair. Ms. Solomon believed that there were already State <br />and federal reporting requirements for the companies in question. She did not think the Citys <br />= <br />program was easy to access online and provided no more information about toxics use than could <br />be secured through the State Fire Marshals Office. She said that it was time for the council to <br />= <br />address the cost issues related to the program, and suggested that ultimately, it be sent back to <br />the voters to confirm that it was what they wanted. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was not prepared to send the program back to the voters at this time. He thought the <br />program was a valuable one. However, as he considered the programs budget, he was not <br />= <br />prepared to support the fee level being proposed. He said that staff had spent no more than <br />three-quarter time on the program, and he had asked staff to provide him with a fee based on .75 <br />FTE. As a result, the fee would be $13.92 per employer FTE. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner reminded the council that the fees would be affected in the next fiscal year because <br />of legislation passed in the 1999 legislature, and he questioned how the City would fund the <br />program at that time given its General Fund budget situation. <br /> <br />é <br />Mr. Pap determined from staff that the budget for fiscal year 2002 was about $101,000. The <br />pro tem <br />proposal before the council was about $112,000. City Manager Jim Carlson clarified that <br />the budget was essentially the same, with an inflationary adjustment. Reserves had been used to <br />é <br />reduce the fees over the last two years, and those reserves were now gone. Mr. Pap asked if <br />the fee was the highest proposed by the Toxics Board. Glen Potter of the Fire & Emergency <br />Medical Services Department, staff to the Toxics Board, indicated that this was the highest fee <br />based on the number of employees and perhaps the highest ever. The fee had been based on a <br />different methodology at times in the past. <br /> <br />é <br />Mr. Pap indicated support for Mr. Meisners proposal. <br />= <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that the program was a City Charter requirement and as long as it was in the <br />charter, the City was required to fund it. Speaking to the comments of Ms. Solomon regarding the <br />fee basis, he said that if the council was able to persuade the legislature to change State law, the <br />City would be able to charge on a quantity basis. Industries that did a good job of managing their <br />toxics use would then pay lower fees. He disagreed with her comments regarding the information <br />provided by the program, as he believed it provided more information of higher quality than State <br />and federal programs. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was sorry to see the increase, but suggested that the fee increase was the result <br />of an arithmetic exercise. He did not want to change the budget recommendation without <br />consulting the Toxics Board. He preferred to approve the fee at this time, and suggested the <br />council then adopt a motion that called for the board to examine the issue and forward a <br />recommendation to the council. He pointed out to Mr. Meisner that the charter precluded the use <br />of General Fund money to underwrite the costs of the program. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she trusted the judgment of the board, which recommended the fee. She <br />emphasized that the program was the result of a charter amendment initiated and approved by <br />the voters, and if it was to be repealed she thought that should be a voter effort rather than a <br />council effort. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTESEugene City Council March 12, 2003 Page 3 <br />C <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />