CCMinutes - 03/10/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

changes to the rules from the State Legislature. The fee cap was %ad 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 the reporters of hazardous substances, so that some users of such substances who fall below the quantity threshold were not reporting. She thought there was a good argument to be made that those users should also be supporting the program. That would reduce the cost to the average business by a great deal and make it more affordable. She hoped the board would look at that approach. With regard to what should be in the charter, Ms. Nathanson said the problem was putting administrative details in the charter; that made it difficult to address changes or problems that arose. She hoped further charter proposals could be implemented through existing administrative processes as had been done in other instances. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He said that such details should not be in the charter, pointing out that part of the amendment was found to be unconstitutional The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting no Mr. Poling, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the Toxics Board to return to the council in time for implementation by the 2005 billing cycle, a proposal to address the fee inequity and concerns caused by legislative ac- tions and court decisions, while preserving the general intent of the voters in adopting the program. Mr. Poling said the fee schedule needed to be cleaned up. He wanted to avoid possible lawsuits or petitions from the citizens to remove the program from the charter. He was not opposed to the program as long as it was administered fairly and equitably. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Poling if he wanted the board to look at the charter amendment, taking into considera- tion legislative actions and court rulings related to the fee schedule and the inequity in the fees that resulted, and make a recommendation to the council. Mr. Poling confirmed that the review could include a recommendation for an amendment to the charter. Mr. Kelly said charter changes would result in an expensive political campaign. If he thought that such changes were necessary, he would support that. However, the testimony the council heard about ways to broaden the fee base would not require charter changes to implement. Mr. Kelly said that if examination of the charter amendment was not a part of the motion, he would be able to support it. Ms. Bettman thought the discussion, if not the actual language in the motion, made it implicit the intent was to get the program back on the ballot, and she considered that a political maneuver. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to ex- plicitly preclude putting the amendment back on the ballot. Ms. Bettman reiterated her previous remark about the intent of the motion. She thought there were ways to manage what the State legislature had done to the program. She said the Toxics Right-to-Know Program was necessary because toxics affected people personally, and people had a right to know what the chemicals in use in their community were. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 7 Work Session