CCMinutes - 03/10/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Speaking to Ms. Bettman's remarks about the intent of the motion, Mr. Meisner said he helped Mr. Poling to craft the motion. It was his intent that the board would take a broad look at the program, and if the board suggested a charter amendment, the voters had the choice to amend the charter or leave the charter amendment in place. There would be no advisory ballot question suggesting ~repeal, amend, or preserve." He wanted the charter amendment to work and it clearly did not. Mr. Meisner said annually the council heard from upset citizens who fear the council would exceed or violate the intent of the charter amendment. He wanted the intent of the amendment carried out. Mr. Kelly thought the intent of the motion could be carried out without the need to modify the charter amendment. He did not want to open up the issue further than necessary. Mr. Kelly said he felt as though the council was being played as puppets. He found it ironic that the businesses objecting to the fee schedule lobbied the legislature to institute a fee cap. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the revised fee schedule meant a 50- employee company would pay $1,500 annually. He said that was ;real money' but not in itself a real burden. He said the board should do something about the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and the State legislature should repeal the fee caps. Mr. Pap6 left the meeting at 1:22 p.m. Mr. Poling pointed out the motion referred the issue to the board and did not refer the charter amendment to the voters. The motion did not reflect any opposition to the program. He said that unless Ms. Bettman ~was in my head knowing how I'm thinking," she could not know his intent. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Poling's summary of the motion. She did not want to preclude the Toxics Board from any action it thought needed. She pointed out the Toxics Board was well-balanced and she thought it appropriate to let it discuss issues such as the SIC codes. Ms. Bettman agreed the motion did not explicitly call for referring the amendment to the voters, but in his e- mail communication regarding his intent to offer the motion Mr. Poling had mentioned his interest in %leaning the current charter amendment up a little bit," which meant taking it back to the ballot. Her motion merely precluded that. Ms. Nathanson determined from Mr. Poling that among the items he envisioned the board discussing were broadening the range of business types, reducing the employee threshold, and reducing the quantity threshold. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Ms. Taylor was astounded that any councilors would oppose Ms. Bettman's amendment unless they wanted to put the charter amendment on the ballot. In response, Mr. Meisner said he did not want to tie the hands of the Toxics Board by limiting its scope of examination. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 8 Work Session