Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/14/05 Mtg MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Session Council Chamber--City Hall February 14, 2005 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, Chris Pryor, Andrea Ortiz, Bonny Bettman, Gary Papd. Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Piercy announced that she had signed a proclamation recognizing the 100th anniversary of Rotary International on February 25, 2005. She expressed her thanks on behalf of the City of Eugene for its service to the community in numerous ways. 1. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Piercy reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, stated that he had distributed copies of an article from the February 13, 2005, edition of the Oregonian entitled Lessons from Washington First ora two-part series, A study in higher ed success, Washington's commitment to colleges pays educational and ecomomic dividends Oregon lacks. He said the article presented a comparison between the University of Washington and the University of Oregon (UO), and asked the councilors to read the article. Mr. Miller urged councilors to also read a booklet entitled Pioneers Administrators of the University of Oregon, which was available at the UO bookstore. He expressed concern that the Pioneers Administrators of the University of Oregon did not accurately depict the UO's leadership. David Helton, 878 Glory Drive, spoke on behalf of the Woodmen of the World/Community Center for the Performing Arts (WOW/CCPA). Mr. Helton addressed the Housing Policy Board (HPB) Request for Proposal (RFP) process for affordable housing on property adjacent to the WOW Hall's property. He said the CCPA Board of Directors had endorsed the Metropolitan Affordable Housing (Metro) proposal on the following conditions: 1) the WOW Hall be allowed to purchase a lot adjacent to the WOW Hall referred to as the back lot; and 2) Metro be required to make the investments in the WOW Hall and to Metro's building to address noise abatement concerns. He added that the WOW Hall, Metro, and the City of Eugene had agreed to the conditions. Mr. Helton reported that some members of the community were claiming that the residential development would cause the WOW Hall to be shut down. Conversely, the WOW Hall board and staff acknowledged the facility existed in an urban community and that the area around the facility was bound to redevelop. He added it provided an opportunity to make investments in the WOW Hall to address existing noise concerns. Metro had committed to funding several thousands of dollars in noise abatement measures. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 1 Regular Session He said a full noise attenuation upgrade would be paid by the WOW Hall through fundraising efforts and possibly with some assistance from the City of Eugene. Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, expressed concern that the steam plant at the riverfront would be torn down to build a ditch to bring cars to the edge of the river, and noted that the building had potential to be used as a museum. He heard that there had been discussion by the Alumni Association about using Agate Hall as a site for a new alumni center, and hoped there would be adequate opportunity for public input. He said the Joe Romania showroom had been featured on the cover of City of Eugene Preservation Notes. Mr. Vishanoff said the proposed basketball arena was a public issue that should be openly debated in the community and asked Mayor Piercy if there would be a series of debates where the public could ask questions about the proposed project. Mr. Vishanoff expressed concerns related to charter schools, claiming the UO had contributed to development of the controversial federal No Child Left Behind rules that affected charter schools. Scott Purcell, 3425 Strathmore Place, encouraged the City Council to adopt the enterprise zone on Wednesday, February 16, 2005, consistent with the State of Oregon guidelines, without additional guidelines. He said studies by the UO Economics Department cited positive impacts the last enterprise zone had on the community, noting almost 80 small and mid-sized businesses had taken advantage of and benefited from the enterprise zone. He noted that the family-wage jobs come from businesses going to the next level. He said the City Council played an important part in establishing the enterprise zone without additional constraints in order to help those businesses get to the next size that was good for the community. He opined that increasing the hourly wage from $11 to $13 would not realistically enable small businesses to take advantage of the growth coming from the enterprise zone with the wage attachment. Many of the small firms did eventually get into the highly desired, good family-wage jobs. Mr. Purcell stated that an enterprise zone was healthy for the City coffers as the tax base grew over a long period of time, even though taxes were abated initially for a five-year period. W. Bruce Mulligan, 3056 Hendricks Hill Drive, represented the Hendricks Hill Homeowners Association, consisting of approximately 70 property owners. He read a resolution that had been adopted unanimously at the annual association meeting on January 27, 2005, a copy of which had been distributed to council members, that supported any action by the City Council to limit future development through the acquisition of the 120-acre McDougal Property in the Laurel Valley as a natural preserve outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Mulligan added that the association took no position on any other aspect of the proposed transaction. Jana Jackson, 1012 East 22nd Avenue, spoke in support of Officer Randy Ellis in his attempts to address trespassing issue with some of the panhandlers and vagrants in Eugene. She said there were many people who were disturbed by the large number of panhandlers approaching people for money, creating hazardous traffic situations and contributing to automobile accidents. She stated people were tired of stepping over the trash, garbage and human waste, and having to clean it up. People felt too intimidated to visit a business, go to their cars, or walk down the street alone, and they were tired of being victimized by burglary, robbery or assault. She submitted a petition with 685 signatures to the City Manager's Office, and noted that additional signatures were being collected. She said that The Register-Guard consistently attacked the Police Department, presenting things as homeless issues when there were several problem groups, including panhandlers; methamphetamine users; criminal mischief-makers engaged in drawing graffiti, tagging trucks and vans, slashing tires, etching windows; criminal transients who came to Eugene and caused problems; and gang-related problems. She noted that her group was not targeting homeless people, adding if that was MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 2 Regular Session the only issue in town, it would not be an issue. Ms. Jackson said there were many resources in Eugene to help homeless people. She added that she wanted Eugene to be a welcoming city and destination spot and wanted to see downtown revitalized. She asserted that people would not come downtown if they felt unsafe and uncomfortable. Drix Rixmann, 307.5 East 14th Avenue, announced he had a vision for Eugene and its future. He said the vision was comprised of the economy of Eugene being built on words. He cited several examples of his vision. Mark Robinowitz, 28549 Sutherlin Lane, reported that a legal challenge of Hood River's ban on excessively large stores had been unsuccessful. A town in Oregon had the legal right to challenge excessively large big boxes, in this particular case, Walmart, the largest vendor of ;'Made in China" products in the world. He stated that there was sentiment for similar action in Eugene to protect local businesses. He added that he was disturbed to recently learn that Home Depot was planning a second store at Seventh Avenue and Seneca Street. He opined that Home Depot had used false pretenses for approval its site review, in particular that the West Eugene Parkway would be completed by 2010, which he maintained the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) said was unlikely. He said the presence of the multi- national corporation located in an inappropriate location would create traffic problems. He added that ODOT was spending $1.7 million to study the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Robinowitz averred that four years ago, the City of Eugene, Lane County, State of Oregon, and the federal government agreed that the "no build" alternative would be picked for the parkway, adding that if that decision had been implemented, the alternative to parkway would have been completed. Charles Tilt, 85581 South Willamette Street, opined he was one of the people David Helton said was predicting that the WOW Hall would be shut down by noise created by residential apartment complexes built in close proximity to the WOW Hall. He said his proposal for renovating the Ridenour Building on the tax lot adjacent to the WOW Hall intended to take advantage of the opportunity represented by WOW Hall customers on the sidewalk prior to, during and after shows. He reported he had financing in place for the purchase of the building, and he was offering $40,000 more than the current market value of the property to the City. He added that he had been assured by City staff that the tax lots could be sold individually, with the proceeds reverting to the CDBG fund for affordable housing elsewhere. Mr. Tilt said the building had been substantially updated in the 1990s, with new roof and sewer line, and could be further renovated. He added keeping the building in place would provide a buffer between the WOW Hall noise and activity, and any new apartment buildings that would be built on the remainder of the block. Keeping the Ridenour Building in place would keep a footprint that would be twice as large as the recently completed 54-unit Aurora Building. He believed the youth focused programming at the WOW Hall was an important cultural asset to Eugene that was at risk in building housing at the site. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris Street, said she had spent four years working on using the Ridenour Building as a community resource. She said she had talked with many community members who felt the best interests of Eugene and WOW Hall would not be served by constructing a $13 million apartment building that would lead to shutting down the WOW Hall, a major venue for youth, one police citation at a time. She said it was a mistake to purchase the property and then specify maximum density housing in the Request for Proposals (RFP). She claimed the HPB often "rubberstamped" Allocation Subcommittee recommendations. Ms. Ging read from written comments from Douglas Beauchamp presented at the February 2, 2005, HPB meeting, that had been distributed to the council. She found numerous incongruities in the process and would provide more information in the future. She expressed concern that the scarce amount of CDBG funds MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 3 Regular Session should only be used for low-income persons and families with children, in light of anticipated CDBG cuts at the federal level. Charles Peters, 2435 Potter, a volunteer at the WOW Hall and board member of the CCPA, thanked Ms. Ging for speaking on behalf of the CCPA as CCPA member, but reminded the City Council that Ms. Ging did not speak for the CCPA. He added while her opinions were valued, the board did not share her fear that this was the end of the WOW Hall. Mr. Peters stated that if the council did not approve the Metro proposal, it would be the end of the WOW Hall, because the Metro plan was being done with federal funds that required sound mitigation measures. He added that Metro was willing to provide funds to the WOW Hall for a cooler to help attenuate the sound in the summer time. He emphasized that Metro was working with the WOW Hall "left, right and sideways." He added that City staff was working with the WOW Hall, and was researching availability of matching city funds. He concluded that the board was very happy to be working with Metro and very afraid that if the Metro proposal was denied the highest bidder would buy the site and build without any opportunity for input from the WOW Hall. He urged the council to accept the HPB recommendation. He concluded saying that the WOW Hall had been thinking about the changes for a year. Metro was a non-profit organization that was working with the hospital and Lane Community College, to provide housing for students. He emphasized that this was not the end of the world for the WOW Hall. Mayor Piercy called on the council for responses and comments. Councilor Kelly thanked all who spoke. He had two requests of City Manager Taylor. He asked that any written record of the CCPA board's decision and recommendation come to the council before any council action. He said he had not heard that anyone expected the parkway to be completed by 2010. He asked how such a finding was included in the site review for the Home Depot that would seem to contravene fact. He also asked if there was a mechanism in the code that allowed revisiting an approved site review or traffic impact analysis if, after the comment period ended, an error of fact was found. Referring to Mr. Robinowitz's concerns, he asked for a written response to Mr. Robinowitz's contention that the Home Depot site review was approved in part because it presumed the completion of the West Eugene Parkway by 2010. Councilor Taylor stated that she was interested in having a public hearing on the WOW Hall. She expressed alarm to see action on the March 7 agenda about the West 8th Avenue site. She did not feel action should be taken until the council had conducted a work session and a public hearing. She added that the West 8th Avenue business group had an interesting proposal that deserved some discussion. Councilor Solomon said the comments made by Jana Jackson were consistent with at least three phone calls she had received from constituents related to traffic concerns. She asked for a work session, noting that Ms. Jackson had addressed the issue of the good people of Eugene being taken advantage of by transient criminals who came to town and the criminal mischief makers. She stated the City needed to be clearer about its boundaries, asserting that the community did care about homeless people, as Ms. Jackson had clearly articulated. City Manager Taylor suggested that the task force currently studying solicitation, trespassing, panhandling, and homeless issues would be able to incorporate Councilor Solomon's concerns. He agreed to get back to Councilor Solomon with the task force timeline. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 4 Regular Session 3. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes - January 3, 2005, State of the City Address - January 10, 2005 ,Work Session - January 10, 2005, City Council Meeting - January 24, 2005, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Adoption of Resolution 4824, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4816 (Arthur C. Carmichael, Jr. and Larry Von Klein) D. Adoption of Resolution 4825, Extending the Completion Date of Construction of Residential Units Granted a Multiple-Unit Property Tax Exemption Under Resolution 4815 (1375 Olive, LLC) Mayor Piercy reported that the City Council had approved all items on the Consent Calendar with the exception of B, Approval of Tentative Working Agenda, at the 5:30 p.m. City Council Work Session. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved approval of Item B on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Taylor reiterated that she had a problem with the March 7 future agenda showing action on HOME funding for the West 8th Avenue housing project, and opined there should be more discussion on what would happen at that site before taking action. Councilor Pap6 stated he had served on the HPB, and noted Councilor Solomon was currently serving on the HPB. He explained that West 8th Avenue proposal was not new, noting that the HPB and Allocations Subcommittee had been working on the process for quite some time. He added an RFP designed last spring had solicited proposals for low-income housing that had been discussed "ad nauseum" at the committee and HPB level. He recommended that the project be kept on schedule and that the council respect the council established committee process. Roll call vote; the motion to approve Item B passed, 7:1; Councilor Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy announced that during the work session, the City Council had moved Item 6, Ratification of Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations Actions of January 4, January 25, and February 1, 2005, to the top of the agenda. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Solomon, moved to ratify the actions of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) as set forth in the minutes of the committee's January 4, January 25, and February 1, 2005, meetings. Councilor Pap6 affirmed the council practice of bringing individual items to the council when a split vote occurred on the CCIGR. He stated there were four items, action on House Bill 2164, House Bill 2165, House Bill 2350, and Senate Bill 71, on which there were split votes. He said he would support the majority MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 5 Regular Session position on House Bill 2164, and asked to have the remaining items removed from tonight's action and brought back to the council on February 28, 2005. Councilor Kelly recalled that the practice for split votes in the past was that they were brought to the council as highlighted items in the Agenda Items Summary, but were not voted upon separately unless there was a motion to pull them. Mayor Piercy noted no support for Councilor Pap6's request. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Motorized Transportation Devices and Motor Assisted Scooter Sales; Amending Sections 4.990, 5.010, and 5.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding New Sections 4.979 and 5.160 to that Code City Manager Taylor introduced Sergeant Derel Schulz from the Eugene Police Department (EPD), and asked him to briefly describe the proposed motorized transportation and assisted scooter sales ordinance. Sgt. Schulz identified himself as the supervisor for the traffic enforcement unit of the EPD. He reviewed the timeline and process for development of the ordinance and noted that a motorized transportation device (MTD) was exempt from the provision if it was used as a mobility aid by a person with mobility impairment, used by a person with express permission from the City, or used by a City employee or agent in the course of City business. Sgt. Schulz said there are numerous State laws that govern the devices, and explained that the proposed ordinance would address problems that are unique to Eugene: · Ban motorized transportation devices from all City-owned off-street paths. · Prohibit use of motorized transportation devices in a manner that disturbed the peace. · Require merchants to make certain disclosures related to the sale of motor-assisted scooters. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Sue Wolling, 85219 South Willamette Street, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance, because it reflected the public's comments on the issue last fall. She said most people had testified in support of significant restrictions on the use of motorized scooters on the bicycle paths, noting people objected to the noise, speed, fumes, and recognized that the police had no ability to enforce a nuance-complicated ordinance. She said although people had a difficult time identifying exactly what they objected to about the scooters, the scooters were motorized vehicles invading a space that had always been a refuge from motorized traffic, a haven of people-powered transport. She asserted that the bicycle paths were special places, and one of the best things about living in Eugene. Kurt Jensen, 1672 Happy Lane, speaking in support of the proposed ordinance, affirmed Ms. Wolling's comments. He said the bicycle paths were designed and built for non-motorized use that provided a wonderful outdoor experience to thousands of people every week that would be degraded if MTDs were MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 6 Regular Session allowed. He added that the paths provided opportunity for a wide range of activities that had a common factor, i.e., they were undertaken without a motor or engine. He noted that the ordinance was clearly written and enforceable, and it codified the historical use of the bicycle paths. Any suggestion that the City could or should change the ordinance to allow some MTDs but not others and to cite MTDs based on behavior was unrealistic. He stated that by passing the ordinance, the visions and efforts of many citizens who had been involved in the design and construction of the paths was confirmed, that the paths were a place to walk, ride bicycle, skate, amble and to do so under one's own power, thereby improving the health of the users of the paths and the community. Mr. Jensen proposed modifying paragraph E so that users of MTDs had the same access to City streets, the same rights and responsibilities, as all cyclists had on the roads. He urged the council to approve the proposed ordinance and asked the council to keep the bicycle paths safe and quiet, and MTD free. Eldon Andrews, 187 Deadmond Ferry Road, Springfield, proposed placing a speed limit on the bicycle trails and slowing down the bicycles as well as other users. He supported the idea of educating the public. He said pocket bikes were made with lots of power to excite the owner, capable of exceeding 24 miles per hour (MPH). He added they were not licensable as mopeds. He stated that all of the bike bridges would not be accessible to cross the river, resulting in scooter users having to take lengthy detour routes to get to town, creating a hardship. David Sonnichsen, 2435 Skyline Boulevard, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance as a well crafted motion. In addition to the comments from Sue Wolling and Kurt Jensen, Mr. Sonnichsen added that in the notifications that sellers provided to buyers, there should be a range of the potential fines identified for illegally operating a scooter on a City path where the devices were prohibited. He said in the past, drivers parked illegally in handicapped parking spaces until the fines were increased to make the illegal parking financially prohibitive. He added there needed to be a significant fine for people operating motorized scooters on City paths that deterred illegal use. He noted the police already had enough on their plates and there was a need for strong enforcement. Mr. Sonnichsen opposed allowing the scooters on the bridges over the Willamette River, especially near Autzen Stadium. He added that the scooters were toys rather than an alternative to riding a bike, driving a car or walking. Alternative modes were not applicable here because the manufacturers' instructions stated scooters should only be ridden on dry pavement, and there were a lot of days in Eugene when the pavement was not dry. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and asked for questions from councilors. Councilor Poling asked where the SegWay fit into the ordinance, as an electric, personal, assisted, motorized device. Sgt. Schulz replied that there were specific State statutes that governed those devices as a different classification from a motor-assisted scooter. In response to Councilor Poling, Sgt. Schulz said he understood that according to State statute, the SegWay would be allowed on bicycle paths. Councilor Poling had received an email from a constituent expressing concern that he could not cross the Willamette River over Coburg Road, noting that he was subject to citation if he used the sidewalk. If the proposed ordinance passed, the constituent would not be able to cross the river at all. Sgt. Schulz replied that the City Traffic Engineer, Tom Larsen and other City staff were in agreement that given the unique nature of the devices, having them share the roadway with cars was not a safe alternative. Sgt. Schulz added that having the devices share the space with pedestrians and human powered devices was equally unsafe. He concluded the only alternative was for the riders to dismount, turn the power off and walk the devices across the bridges. He said when the devices were viewed as a commuter vehicle, there were MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 7 Regular Session difficulties in that there were only specific roadways and areas where the devices could to be operated, resulting in difficulty for operators to map out a course where the devices could be legally operated on roadways with a speed limit of 25 MPH or less, or roadways that had specific bike lanes. The majority of local roadways did not have dedicated bike lanes, citing Franklin Boulevard, and 6th and 7th avenues as examples. Councilor Ortiz said she had questions similar to those of Councilor Poling, noting in her ward, people used the devices for transportation. She said the proposed ordinance would be problematic for people who worked at Valley River Center who would have to walk the devices across the bridge. Sgt. Schulz suggested it may be possible to commute to a Park and Ride location, or a bus stop, and then use Lane Transit District (LTD) services. He added that sharing pedestrian areas or automobile areas presented safety issues, noting that the multi-use paths had traditionally been viewed as a sanctuary by those who wished to get around under their own power. Councilor Kelly said he would like an answer to the following questions before the council considered adoption of the ordinance. He noted there were two sets of conditions in the ordinance, the notification on sale that identified specific requirements for motorized scooters, and the broader prohibition on off-street bike paths. The prohibitions on what could be done with motorized assisted scooters came right out of State law, which defined motor-assisted scooters in a different place than it defined electric-assisted bicycles. He noted that under State law, an electric-assisted bicycle could be ridden on a 35 MPH street with no bike lane. His constituent wanted assurance that the first section of the ordinance was not intended to prohibit in Eugene only an electric-assisted bike being ridden on a 35 MPH street with no bike lane. Councilor Kelly commented that the ordinance had a clause that the prohibition on off-street paths would not apply to mobility-impaired individuals who needed a motorized device. He emphasized that it was important the mobility impairment be broadly defined to include situations where a medical condition would prohibit an individual from driving an automobile, but could safely use a scooter that did not go faster than 15 MPH. He expressed pleasure that the Human Rights Commission Accessibility Committee had been consulted and would be involved in drafting the administrative rules. He hoped there would be outreach that would publicize opportunities for people to provide input on the mobility impairment issue to the Accessibility Committee. Councilor Kelly said it was not his reading that SegWays would be allowed on the bicycle paths, and asked Sgt. Schulz to verify the State statute. Councilor Papd concurred with Councilor Kelly on mobility impairment issues. He suggested that the City Attorney review the language in 4.979(1)(e) to allow operation of the devices on private property. Councilor Papd reported that former Councilor Nancy Nathanson had previously noted that people valued many things in the community, and no one valued the multi-use paths more than he did. He also wanted to encourage the use of alternate forms of transportation, especially getting people out of their automobiles, and expressed concern, as had Councilor Poling and Councilor Ortiz, about running all motorized vehicles off of alternate ways to get through the community. Councilor Kelly continued Councilor Papd's comments, noting the conundrum of not wanting to put a 15 MPH scooter in the middle of the Ferry Street Bridge, while at the same time not wanting to put it on the sidewalk. He said it was important to take a specific look at critical missing bike lanes on major streets such as Martin Luther King Boulevard. He also suggested that if the off-street paths were removed, a focused MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 8 Regular Session look at adding priority bike lanes should be examined. He asked staff to provide him with a stand- alone motion that was not part of the ordinance to direct staff to scope out priority bike lane stripping. Mayor Piercy commented on the quality of the hearing that brought forth important information that would enable the council to make good decisions about the issue. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Public Contracting; Adding Sections 2.1400, 2.1405, 2.1410, 2.1415, 2.1420, 2.1425, 2.1430, 2.1435, 2.1440, 2.1445, and 2.1450 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Sections 2.1200, 2.1205, 2.1210, 2.1215, 2.1220, 2.1225, 2.1230, 2.1235, 2.1240, 2.1245, 2.1250, and 2.1255 of that Code; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Effective Date City Manager Taylor introduced Tamara Bronson from the Central Services Department, and asked her to briefly describe the proposed Public Contracting ordinance. Ms. Bronson advised councilors that page 13, Section 2.1445 of the proposed ordinance contained a scrivener's error. The first line of Section 2.1445 should read: "Public Contracts - Electronic Advertisement of Contracts." She said the correction would be included when the ordinance was returned to the council for action. Ms. Bronson explained that the purpose of the proposed ordinance was to bring the City of Eugene into compliance with the new State of Oregon Public Contracting Code (OPCC). She said the 2003 State Legislature enacted a complete rewrite of the OPCC that was scheduled to go into effect on March 1, 2005, at the request of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. The new code directed the Department of Justice to write new model rules that were completed and made available to public agencies several months ago. She stated that most of the previous code was written in 1975 and had been amended at every legislative session since that time. Ms. Bronson said that the new OPCC repealed all local public contracting codes and rules, and required local agencies to adopt new codes and rules that were in compliance with the new OPCC. The ordinance before the council would make the City compliant with laws that would go into effect March 1, 2005. She noted that most of the changes were housekeeping in nature and reestablished exemptions that were previously in effect. Mayor Piercy noted that no one had signed up to speak at the public hearing. Mayor Piercy asked for questions or comments from councilors. Councilor Pap~ declared a potential conflict of interest regarding ownership of a company that contracted with the City. Councilor Kelly expressed frustration that the council was up against a March 1 deadline where the City's contracting law expired if nothing was passed, considering the law had been signed by the Governor 16 months ago. He asked why the council did not get the new ordinance a long time ago. City Manager Taylor replied that the Department of Justice (DO J) did not produce the outlines for local governments until MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 9 Regular Session recently, putting a legislative mandate on the City that repealed all of the local laws with a date to enact new laws consistent with the revisions during the last legislative session. Carol Pomes, Purchasing Manager, added that the DOJ purposefully allowed a long time because the undertaking was a major rewrite. She noted that all public agencies were facing the same deadline challenge. Councilor Kelly asked if there were places where the City could deviate from the State code, or if the proposed ordinance closely followed the State code. Ms. Pomes replied the language in the ordinance was what was required by State law. In addition to the State code, new public contracting rules and procedures that comprised the details of public contracting were also being drafted. Councilor Kelly asked what the practical effect on staff and council's involvement was compared to the old code. Ms. Pomes responded that the new code would provide the following: updated procurement terminology and procurement methods; greater ability to do alternative contracting methods; reorganization of the code to facilitate determination of which portions of the code applied to goods and services, and definition of which portions of the code applied to public contracting and public improvement contracting. Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance reflected only the State mandates and nothing else, noting that the findings on page 121, Exhibit A, included a list of provisions that did not require findings. She assumed that the remainder of the provisions for which there were findings above and beyond statutory requirements. Ms. Pomes confirmed Councilor Bettman's observation, adding that State statute required local governments to enact their own exemptions, while others reestablished previous exemptions that had been repealed by the legislation. Councilor Bettman asked, out of the nine pages of findings, how much was above and beyond the existing code that would expire on March 1, and what exceeded the State requirements as new code language. Ms. Pomes replied that the new code included an exemption for privately engineered public improvements (PEPIS), allowing the City to participate as an exemption in those projects. She said the second exemption provided for use of alternative contracting methods for some public improvement projects such as the contractor/architect/design/built projects. Councilor Bettman asked for a memo from the City Manager with the new provisions and a little more of an explanation on the findings. She added that she wanted to know what the checks and balances were, and how the new language related to privatization of services currently provided by the City. Referring to his earlier declaration of a potential conflict of interest, Councilor Pap~ asked for a ruling from the City Attorney. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated if Councilor Pap~ had a conflict, at most it was a potential conflict rather than an actual conflict of interest, and that Councilor Pap~ was free to participate in the discussion and vote on the ordinance. Referring to page 2 of the ordinance, Section 2.1415 (2)(b), Councilor Pap~ asked if alternative contracting methods would allow for a greater use of life cycle costing rather than straight low bid. Ms. Pomes replied that the City had had the ability and had used life cycle costing routinely, and would continue to do so under the new ordinance. The council took a break from 8:55 p.m. to 9:02 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 11 Regular Session 5. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Hazardous Substances User Fees; Amending Sections 3.692 and 3.694 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Adding Section 3.695 to that Code City Manager Taylor introduced Glen Potter from the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, and asked him to briefly describe the proposed ordinance. Mr. Potter said the proposed ordinance before the council would add certain types of businesses to those that currently report and/or pay fees to the Eugene Toxics Right-to-Know Program. He stated he was available to answer questions. Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing and explained the public hearing procedures, noting that each speaker would be limited to three minutes. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, represented the Lane County Home Builders Association. Ms. Cuellar thanked Steve Johnson and David Monk of the Toxics Board for their willingness to work with the association, adding they had been very considerate concerning the association's issues. She stated that under the proposed ordinance, businesses that included painting, wall hanging and roofing contractors would be added to the program. Her first concern was whether those contractors qualified under the definition of hazardous substance users. Section 3.692 defined a hazardous substance user as a business that operated a stationary facility, adding that the Charter defined a facility as all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items that were located and operated on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites. Ms. Cuellar asserted that contractors operated nothing at a single site, but rather worked at job sites in numerous locations, and questioned whether they met the definition of a hazardous substance user under the Charter. She stated there were a number of unanswered questions around the ordinance because the original Charter amendment dealt with manufacturers, whereas contractors used finished materials. The ordinance did not address whether it applied to job sites the contractor traveled to outside of the city. She noted no one she spoke with was willing to take a definitive stand on the question. Ms. Cuellar noted that the ordinance did not address whether a contractor had to include materials in the reporting calculations that were purchased in Eugene but used on job sites outside of Eugene. Did the contractor have to include materials in the reporting calculations that were purchased and provided by the homeowners and applied by the contractors? Jim Dotson, 1668 Willamette Street, identified himself as a photofinisher. He stated that there was a problem with how the Toxics Right-to-Know ordinance viewed photofinishing, adding that, in general, he was very supportive of the measure and the right of people to know what was going on around them. He said he had been advised by Mr. Potter that there was an exclusion in the proposed ordinance for one-hour photofinishers. He asserted that although they used different equipment than those used by traditional labs, the chemistry used in the processes was identical, and opined that excluding one-hour processers was a misstep. Lloyd Dolby, 3820 Monroe Street, identified himself as a small businessman who conducted contract research for pharmaceutical companies, and made two materials for biomedical devices. The business produced the ultraviolet light absorber used in the synthetic lens used in cataract lens replacement. He stated that his business presently reported to the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the State MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session Fire Marshal, the City of Eugene Fire Marshal, and the City of Eugene Wastewater Division, which he opined was enough regulation. He said the proposed ordinance struck him as a parasitic bureaucracy that was mounted on the backs of small business, adding that big businesses seemed to get tax breaks while small businesses got more regulation, which was unfair. He said if his company became subject to the new provisions, he would endeavor to move his business, which supported a $700,000 annual payroll out of Eugene. Vivian MacKenzie, 2806 Country Lane, worked at a small research company that would fall under the proposed amendment. She expressed concern that smaller companies that may have to report did not have the resources for security guards and security systems to ensure their chemicals were protected from illegal drug manufacturers. She stated that the City's website did not have the ability to track who logged on to and used the database that listed chemicals stored at various sites. Her second concern was the reporting burden on smaller businesses. Small businesses were already regulated by the State and City Fire Marshals, City of Eugene Wastewater Division, DEQ and EPA, and had neither the time nor resources for such an extensive reporting program that did nothing to regulate the amount of chemicals that went into the environment but was only a tracking system. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber opposed the ordinance primarily on the basis that, unlike previous ordinances that were necessary to implement the Toxics Right-to-Know Program in the Charter amendment, there was no aspect of the ordinance that was required by local or State law to implement the current program. He added that manufacturers would continue to file reports and the public would continue to have full access to those reports. Mr. Connolly asserted the ordinance had nothing to do with fee inequities, but everything to do with subjecting more businesses in Eugene to more costs and regulations, both of which would put them at a distinct competitive disadvantage with businesses located outside the city. He said that the costs and burdens to the small businesses were only magnified when a local news story said that fewer than ten requests had been received by the Eugene Public Library to see printed reports from the current program. Divided over the cumulative total of taxpayer general funds, business fees and costs of compliance, and City legal expenses incurred because the original charter amendment violated State law, the estimated cost of each request to view the reports at the library was over $100,000. He concluded by saying that the ordinance contradicted the letter and spirit of the categories of businesses that were required to report or pay fees in the Charter amendment. The ordinance would expand the program from large manufacturers as intended by the voters to now cover something entirely different, such as the YMCA fitness center. Mr. Connolly asked the council to follow the advice of the City Manager, noting that the proposed ordinance amendments allowed the problem of fee inequity to be much more complicated than needed. David Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Drive, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said he was unsure of the objective of the proposed ordinance. In addition to financing a City Charter-mandated program in an equitable fashion, some viewed the proposed ordinance as an opportunity to expand the Toxics Right-to-Know Program in rather profound ways. If the objective was to finance the current program, all of the attention was on revenues and not on expenses. If the current budget for the Toxics Right-to-Know Program was $100,000, the bulk of the money in wages and benefits, perhaps the program itself should be reviewed. He said the number of companies required to report had remained largely unchanged since the inception of the program in 1996 and those 40 companies were familiar with the program reporting requirements. He stated that the Toxics Board audited approximately one-third of the reports annually. He said one way to achieve greater fee equity would be to lower fees paid by companies that were currently required to pay fees, thus maintaining the original intent of the Charter while reducing MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 13 Regular Session the expense to those companies that had to comply. He asserted the savings could be realized by reducing staff support, reducing hours for the program, contracting the services out to the private sector, or directing the Toxics Board to limit its focus on the current program as a way to reduce staff support. By considering a 25 percent to 50 percent reduction in budgeted expenditures, the council would respect the integrity of the program and do a great service to small business that would be wrapped into the new ordinance. Conversely, he said if the objective was to expand the program and include small, locally owned businesses, then the council should do so in a fair, deliberative, and transparent manner. He noted there had been no City outreach to impacted businesses related to this proposed ordinance. Patty McConnell, 1060 West 1 st Avenue, owner of a collision repair facility that would be affected by the proposed ordinance, identified herself as a small business owner who was concerned about environmental issues. She expressed deep concern about expansion of an ordinance that would negatively impact her business and other small business that were already heavily regulated by DEQ, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA), EPA, and the State Fire Marshal. As a collision and paint facility, the business was also regulated by the insurance industry, and was not able to charge for services randomly. She stated that her business was not a manufacturing firm, but rather a small service business that repaired vehicles owned by private citizens. She added the business purchased products from a local company, and owned expensive state-of-the-art equipment that dealt with hazardous waste used in the business. Additionally, this green business recycled all hazardous materials and took its reputation as a responsible and concerned business quite seriously. She said the burden of the proposed ordinance would compound the overhead in an already highly regulated business and would negatively impact the economy in Eugene. Ms. McConnell opined that Eugene was under scrutiny as being very unfriendly to business in general, and she could identify with the concerns of small businesses that wanted to stay in Eugene but found it difficult to deal with the additional requirements presented in proposed ordinance. She asserted that if the City Council had the interests of the small business community at heart, the ordinance was not the way to achieve positive change. She questioned the validity of expansion of a program that could not produce solid evidence that it had met the objectives established in 1996. Contrary to Mr. Johnson's remarks in the guest viewpoint in The Register-Guard, reporting would not be quite as easy as he had said nor would businesses like hers benefit as he suggested. Aside from the added fees, additional expenses would be incurred compiling the required reporting information. She stated the number of businesses required to report would increase the administrative burden on the City, requiring additional funding. Coupled with the number of additional employees required by the businesses to compile reports, a bureaucratic nightmare would result. Ms. McConnell expressed concern that Mayor Piercy had publicly expressed support for the proposed ordinance prior to hearing public testimony. Jeff Musgrove, 1152 Olive Street, said he and his brother owned Musgrove Family Mortuary and Crematorium that had operated in downtown Eugene since 1883, noting that the crematorium had been installed about 25 years ago. He expressed concern about expanding the Toxics Right-to-Know Program and was mystified how crematoriums got on the expansion list. He said the crematorium was a natural gas- filled kiln, adding that no other chemicals or substances were used in the cremation process. Mr. Musgrove asserted that the emissions from the stack were monitored and regulated by LRAPA, and that the EPA considered crematoriums a low priority for regulation. A diesel truck put out 42 times more carbon monoxide than a crematorium; an automobile discharged 100 times more hydrocarbons; and a residential fireplace emitted 182 times the amount of dioxin and furan. He expressed amazement that this business would be targeted for higher fees, since crematoriums provided an environmentally friendly method for final disposition. He was concerned that expansion of the Charter amendment would impact his relationship with MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 14 Regular Session his competition, saying his biggest competitor, while based in Eugene, had its crematorium in Springfield. His business would be subjected to higher fees and reporting overhead. Mr. Musgrove also expressed concern about the fee structure based upon the number of employees for what amounted to a part-time business of cremation. He asserted that the unfairness and uncertainty was harmful to his business, and the increased overhead would be detrimental to his client families. He asked the council to refrain from enacting the ordinance; an action that would make him contemplate relocating his business. Jennifer Gleason, 3241 Donald Street, was a co-petitioner of the original Charter amendment and a right- to-know advocate on the Toxics Board. The original ordinance was designed to make it fair and manageable to the participating businesses, and to provide information for citizens about toxic chemicals in the community without having to pay to get the information. As the program had been implemented, businesses using large amounts of hazardous chemicals paid a reasonable fee to support the program. Businesses that opposed the program had filed a lawsuit against the City of Eugene that resulted in the court declaring that the fees to operate the program could not be based on the quantity of chemicals used by a facility, resulting in the current fee structure that required a business that did not use any hazardous substance to pay the same fee as a manufacturer that used large amounts of chemicals. Next, the businesses lobbied the State legislature to impose a $2,000 cap on the fee paid by any facility. Currently, a small manufacturer paid more per employee than a large business, to cover program expenses. She asserted that the inequities were brought into the program by the regulated businesses. Rectifying inequities was very difficult thanks to the court decisions and actions taken by the legislature at the request of those businesses. She said the proposed ordinance attempted to remedy the inequities while reducing the per-full-time-employee (FTE) charge assessed against the businesses. Ms. Gleason said the original intent of the law was to gain information about toxics in the community, and stated that the proposed ordinance would help accomplish that goal. Noting that the proposal may not be the perfect solution, she suggested that the council look for ways to improve the draft ordinance and urged the council to listen to the speakers and come up with the perfect ordinance and support the Toxics Board's recommendation. Mary O'Brien, 1192 Lawrence Street, a co-author of the Toxics Right-to-Know charter amendment, and a six-year member of the Toxics Board, stated that the two proposals brought to the council attempted to minimize right-to-know funding inequities. The first was a small surcharge on commercial solid waste accounts, and the second was inclusion of additional hazardous substance users in the program. Both proposals provided a reduction but not elimination of the two fundamental inequities that industries created for themselves. Eugene's reporting businesses had completely blocked the ability of the Toxics Board to charge fees only to those companies that used 2,640 pounds of hazardous substances by claiming that Eugene's materials balance reporting program was the same as the State Fire Marshal's program. She asserted that the court's ruling was not appealed by the Toxics Board because it had been told that the court would defer to the State legislature. She added that the reporting businesses also blocked the board from charging only a small per-FTE charge to small businesses by going to the State legislature and asking for a cap that served only the interests of large businesses. She stressed that the only businesses that could end the inequities were those that had created those inequities by asking the State legislature to allow local jurisdictions to fund right-to-know programs equitably. She stated that the City Council should insist on the right of the community, both regulatory agencies and citizens, to be able to find out what toxics were released into the community and where. The City Council should send a clear message that its primary loyalty was to all citizens who were exposed against their will to toxic substances and who should be able to learn what and where those substances were. She concluded that if the council failed to act on either of the board's recommendations for minimizing the inequities created by the businesses, the business efforts to "choke" right-to-know would be rewarded. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 15 Regular Session Steve Johnson, 3818 Laurel Hill, illustrated his comments with two posters, entitled Eugene Toxics Right to Know: Reporting Businesses and Eugene Toxics Right to Know: Proposed New Businesses. He asserted that the only way to learn what and how much hazardous substance was being released was to refer to the reports available through the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. He stated that auto repair and filling stations released enormous amounts of benzene that had negative effects on children, as supported by a study by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. Lisa Arkin, 1192 Lawrence Street, Eugene, the Executive Director of the Oregon Toxics Alliance, said the primary mission of the alliance was to inform the public and the media about toxic use issues. She said the public needed to be aware of toxics issues to better plan community health. She said that The Register- Guard recently erroneously implied that Eugene's Toxics Right-to-Know Program was the only one in the state because no other city was interested in establishing a similar program. She countered that opposition or lack of interest played no role in the singularity of Eugene's program, but that no other community was able to put such a program in place due to a 1999 law, House Bill 2431, supported by the Oregon Associated Industries, that discouraged any city or county from enacting right-to-know ordinances due to policy hurdles and economic barriers. She stated Portland recently adopted a toxics reduction strategy whereby the City and Multnomah County adopted policies that supported reduction and elimination of public and environmental exposures to toxic pollutants, and similar programs were in place in Lake Oswego, Seattle, Cleveland and San Francisco, as well as the states of New Jersey and Massachusetts. In response to The Registe~Guard's contention that there was little public interest in the reports that could be accessed on the City's website, Ms. Arkin stated the Oregon Toxics Alliance received at least 20 to 30 calls annually, many from people considering moving to Eugene, seeking assistance in determining the risk of exposure to hazardous emissions in various parts of the city. Dianne Lobes, 4595 Fox Hollow Road, said that it was entirely fair that any company that used hazardous materials should contribute to the administrative costs of the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. What was unfair was for a company to claim it was unfair to pay a fee because their use was less than the threshold of 2,640 pounds annually. She stated there was evidence linking cumulative chronic chemical exposures to illness and chronic health conditions, asserting that the public had a right to know about all hazardous emissions in the community, regardless of whether or not they met the 2,640 pound threshold. The proposed ordinance would improve the City's Toxics Right-to-Know Program by bringing it into alignment with the voters' intention. Lynne Fessenden, 95348 Grimes Road, Junction City, a scientist who worked for a national non-profit on toxic issues, encouraged the council to adopt the proposed ordinance to address the inequities in the current funding of the hazardous substance reporting program. She said knowledge was essential, and that synthetic chemicals could be found in all sources of surface water in the United States and in our bodies. She said that public health officials, health care providers, public servants and policy makers, regulatory authorities, and citizens must understand that specific knowledge of the home, community, workplace and school environments was essential information for identifying health risks and implementing preventive strategies against disease and disability. She said Eugene's program illustrated a sophisticated comprehension of this new age of ubiquitous chemical contamination and was leading the way in addressing informed decision making with transparent, relevant and valuable information. She urged the council and the Toxics Board to create an equitable fee system. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 16 Regular Session David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, referred to a packet of information that he had prepared and encouraged councilors to read the information. As one of the three right-to-know advocates and the current chair of the Toxics Board, he offered a revised proposal to the proposed ordinance and asked the council to affirm tonight the unanimous recommendation from the board to include other hazardous substance users. He said the revised language deleted painting, roofing, wall covering contractors, and crematoriums from the proposed ordinance. He also asked that the council recognize the limitations of the board to address the fee inequities in the program and to encourage those in the business community who sued the City and lobbied for the legislative cap, to go back to the legislature this session and advocate for quantity-based fees and support the City's position for elimination of the fee cap. Mr. Monk took issue with a February 13, 2005, article in The Register-Guard by Mr. Russo that misrepresented the language that defined hazardous substance users. Evan Arkin, 29136 Gimpl Hill Road, an eighth grader from Spencer Butte Middle School, said that youth breathe in more air than adults and he wanted to know what he was breathing in. He asked how youth could participate in the process. He encouraged the council to consider the youth of the community and asserted he spoke for the youth of the community. He wanted to know how he could take part in the future of the community and how he could participate in learning about the environment, how to control it and how to make it safe. He understood that some businesses may consider it unfair to pay fees, but compared to the overall health of the community, the ordinance would help people know what was going into the air. He encouraged the council to look through the packets, alarming facts, and alarming statistics to realize that youth and adults need to know what was going into the air. Planet Glassberg, 1154-½ Hodson Lane, said that several women friends had died of cancer in a five-year period. She asked what it was going to take to prevent any more harm to Eugene residents. She wanted to know what substances industries, corporations, and business were using that would cause harm, and why they could not use alternatives that would not harm the environment or individuals. She asserted that the environment and people must come before profits. All corporations, businesses, and industries needed to be accountable and honest. It was time for the City to adopt and implement the precautionary principle as San Francisco and other cities had. Ruth Duemler, 1745 Fircrest Drive, said there was a need for a fair way to pay for the program. She asserted that everyone should work together to accomplish that goal. She displayed a chart that illustrated the difference between what was reported to the City compared to what was reported to the State and federal governments, noting higher figures were reported to the City. She encouraged the council to approve the ordinance. Stephen Kujawa, 29495 Airport Road, ran a small, clean manufacturing business that employed six employees who supported families in Eugene. He said that the business used small amounts of chemicals that were already reported to the EPA, the Fire Marshal, and other regulatory authorities. He said the business could expand to ten employees within the next year, at which time the cost of doing business in Eugene would go up. He stated the proposed ordinance was inequitable in that it did not proportionally distribute the costs to users. He asserted that the proposal punished small, growing companies that provided family-wage jobs. He found it ludicrous that small companies using very little of the substances were charged proportionately huge fees compared to larger companies that used 99 percent of the substances. He asked if the City wanted small companies to spend time and money on redundant paperwork or on employee health insurance, or perhaps on expanding their businesses resulting in more family-wage jobs. He said if the ordinance could not be enforced equitably, the job should be left to other regulatory agencies, and MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 17 Regular Session perhaps expanding the scope so it was more available. He said if the increasing costs were passed on to small businesses, soon everyone would be working at Wal-Mart. Tim Higgins, 1796 Willamette Street, said his petroleum business was currently regulated by the EPA, DEQ, the State Fire Marshal, and the Department of Agriculture. He said operators had to be licensed and certified by the State prior to being able to operate underground storage tanks. He said the new regulations were redundant. He stated that the proposed ordinance would have no effect on reducing emissions in the petroleum industry, noting that implementing Stage 1 and Stage 2 recovery efforts were the only ways to reduce emissions. Mr. Higgins said he recently spent about $450,000 upgrading his company's facility, with no financial assistance from the oil companies, and said there was no money left. When he was growing up, there were over 200 gas stations in Eugene and Springfield, and today there were 28 to 30. Within five years, he said only 15 or 20 stations operated by the big conglomerates would remain, and petroleum distribution in Eugene would be controlled by four or five people. He asserted that there was nothing the City could do that would compare to what the DEQ would put his company through during an upcoming six-hour inspection. He said the council was in over its head, and did not have a clue about the environmental regulations and equipment at a simple site. His 86-year-old father had breathed gasoline fumes his entire life and had no side effects, and his children had spent considerable time at the gas station with no ill effects. He did not know of anyone personally who had a side effect from petroleum fumes. He acknowledged that some people had health problems, but a small, noisy minority supported the ordinance. He concluded that most people do not care about the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. Mark Robinowitz, 28549 Sutherlin Lane, said he knew many people who had cancer and other health problems from the sorts of substances covered by the Toxics Right to Know ordinance. He asserted that the real issue was prevention. He noted that the toxic plume under the railroad was caused by a chlorinated solvent when a non-toxic alternative could have been used. Mr. Robinowitz said an article about green building technologies and wafer board made without formaldehyde appeared in a recent edition of Home Power Magazine published in Ashland. He noted that formaldehyde was the number one toxin in the air in Lane County, and that there were nontoxic alternatives. He asserted that medical costs resulting to toxic exposures were shifted to the public. He expressed concern about toxic substances transported via rail. Councilor Poling, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved that the meeting be extended to 10:20 p.m. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mara Wile, 3470 High Street, supported the Toxics Right-to-Know Program. She said that exposure to chemicals could lead to serious health issues. She stated that had that fact been known in the past, her River Road area home would not be sitting next to a toxic plume. She said if businesses were bringing toxic chemicals into the community, the community was entitled to the details. She did not see the much- publicized commotion that Eugene was not friendly to businesses. Her research for a new office location for her company in Santa Fe, Durango, Berkeley, and Boise demonstrated that those areas had more taxes, more forms, more licensing, and more requirements than did Eugene. She said chemicals had benefits but there should be correlating costs, asserting that the cost of the program was minimal, and the community deserved the right to know. She objected to The Register-Guard's contention that the website was used very little, when she found the website to be very helpful. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 18 Regular Session Ethan McCutchen, 2984 Mill Street, the Director of Grass Commons, a Eugene-based, non-profit organization, said the obligation of a business to publish its effect on its social and natural environs should transcend the usual arm wrestling between free market capitalism and government regulation. He stated that there was a common need for information regardless of whether one relied on policy or market forces to build a strong, healthy society. Openly shared information was written explicitly into the assumptions of capitalist theory in nearly every text on the subject beginning with Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. He said business communities had traditionally been anti-capitalist in this regard, using the rhetoric of market forces to dress up tactics that took information and power away from consumers, and therefore away from market forces. He said measuring and revealing hazardous substance usage came before any debate about toxics problems. Win Denham, 1995 West Seventh Avenue, was a small employer with a business in Eugene that had gotten smaller. He said one of the reasons small businesses got smaller was due to expense that they could not control. He expressed disgust that government regulation committees such as the Toxics Board had to be funded. He explained that he could not develop his business's budget in the same manner as public agencies because he did not use the money of others. He said he and his contemporaries were being forced to use their money to support a program that they could not control, asserting the ordinance was all about the money. His business had one half of the family-wage jobs it had five years ago, and programs such as the Toxics Right-to-Know Program were designed to move his customers to other locations. He said burdening small businesses with the cost of the program was not the way to go. Kathy Ging, 2878 Harris, said she was a major contributor to the Toxics Right-to-Know movement, and supported the changes in the Toxics Right-to-Know law, saying that painters and dry cleaners needed to be added. She found comfort in knowing that businesses must disclose their discharges, surmising this prevented the most toxic emitters from choosing to locate in Eugene, which was a good thing. She stated that the program in Eugene was the best in the United States. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and thanked those who testified. She expressed appreciation on behalf of the City Council for the comments that were made. The meeting adjourned at 10:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) m:12OOSIcentral services departmentlcity manager's off~celcity councillccOSO214m2, doc MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 19 Regular Session