CC Minutes - 08/13/07 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman commented that 20-gallon cans were not available on an every-other-week basis. She compared the rate charged to commercial customers for one cubic yard to the residential rate for a 32 gallon can collected every other week and concluded that commercial customers paid about half the rate of residential customers for the same amount of waste. Ms. Young replied that residential rates were progressive by weight and weight studies were performed periodically to give an assumed weight, whereas commercial rates were progressive by volume because of the differences between businesses. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Young said that some cities established a rate of return range, such as 9 to 11 percent, instead of a specific rate like Eugene and it was misleading to compare Eugene's rate to other cities as other cities included the disposal fee. Mr. Zelenka said Eugene's rate would be 9 percent if it were calculated in the same way. Mr. Zelenka asked for clarification of the term "progressive rates" as it appeared the rate by volume decreased as the amount of waste increased. Ms. Young explained that residential weight studies had found that a 32-gallon container usually had more weight per gallon that a 60- or 90-gallon container, most likely as a result of people downsizing containers and putting more into them. She said for commercial rates there was a volume factor that took into consideration that a two-yard container would not be exactly double a one-yard container for the same reason. Ms. Taylor asked why 20-gallon cans could not be picked up every other week. Ms. Young said she did not know the answer, but a residential customer could choose to have a 32-gallon can that was collected once a month. She would check into the 20-gallon can issue. Ms. Bettman remarked that cans were getting heavier because people were removing yard debris and recyclable materials and what remained were heavier items. She said that worked against sustainability principles because a cheaper rate and larger can meant that people were less likely to remove things that did not need to go into the waste stream. Referring to a 32-gallon can picked up monthly in lieu of a 20-gallon can picked up every other week, she did not think it was feasible to keep garbage for that length of time. Ms. Young replied that typically those customers did not put garbage in their cans and that seemed to work for them. Ms. Bettman felt that presented a disincentive to the use of smaller containers. She hoped the council would have another work session to address the issues that had been raised. She referred to the schedule of fees on page 57 of the agenda packet and pointed out that if the residential rate for a 32-gallon can was converted to a cubic yard equivalent, it would be twice as high as the commercial rate. She said the City should choose either a per weight or per volume rate structure and apply it equally to both residential and commercial customers and make rates progressive by charging a higher rate for putting more material into the waste stream. Mr. Zelenka stated that Lane County charged a tipping fee by weight, not volume, and it made sense for the City's rate was based on weight. He asked for an explanation of how calculations went from weight to rates for the residential fees. He commented that there was no competition in the City's waste collection system as Sanipac had an 85 percent market share with the remaining 15 percent split among the other six haulers; that was why there was a regulated rate. Ms. Bettman requested another work session on the issue. She commented that operational costs for haulers were counted as the cost of doing business before the profit was added, but the public had no say in how those companies were operated while being responsible for guaranteeing an 11 percent profit. She asked MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2007 Page 6 Work Session