08/26/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J ! ~ ,~ - , ., c In response to Councilwoman Campbell, Mr. Deverell said the commercial rates were increased, and that they had not been increased since 1971. Mrs. Campbell suggested that some information should be supplied the public if an increase was granted and ~ then billed on a retroactive basis. I : C~uncilman Williams preferred to see action delayed until after the September elec- I t~on because he was not in favor of setting a rate condi t.ioned upon the outcome of the I election. Also, he said he didn't understand why there should be such a difference . . b~tween the garbage haulers rate incre~rtand the increase in taxes for the garbage ,) d~sposal program ($3.60 per year vs $9.00). He said he would like to have an ex- }i planation of that as well as a breakdown in dollars showing the implication of . <:; i elimination of the dumping fees. ~. .'<, ,'i . ' ~\ Counc~lman ,Keller inquired about the substantial increase in commercial rates. J Mr. Deverell said it seemed ~ust~fied because of the length of time since an in- I crease had been granted and ~n v~ew of the inflationary factors. He said the { ! ~aulers were having to absorb the dumping costs charged by the County. Mr. [vei tzel, ~n response to question from Councilman Keller, said that under the fee schedule charged by the County before the o.ld serial levy expired. the haulers were paying $300 per month in dumping fees; under the new schedule to replace revenues from 1 the ;;erial levy, they were paying the County $900 per month. ::'----"--""-' -.;... ..-- ~~:" - -.'. """', ~':~":""'-;5-'- ,," .'.-'''':'~ ... - ,.'< ..:......-..... ," ~ . Councilwoman Beal noted that even the $300 fee would not have to be paid if the serial .levy .was adopted in September and she com~ented on the apparent costly ~ campaign waged by the haulers in defeating the levy in July. Mr. Braun quoted .., $800 he contributed to that campaign, and he said that it was given because he felt defeat of the levy would save money for the general public, Councilman McDonald said he wou.ld vote for the rate increase. He commented on the ,iI1!portance of recycling as a way of l~_~!!._I!.ing the amount of_gC::,rbage taken ~o__~he_~ump.,: In response to Councilwan Keller, Mr. weitzel said-the dumping charge for a ',.. J 20-yard truck before July 15 was $5.00; no~, $18.00. Also, that it was difficult to compare commercial and residential rates because they. were basically two dif- ferent operations requiring different equipment for different volumes. . However, he added, the total volume of residential garbage produced in Eugene equaled the . . total amount of commercial refuse. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to set public hearing on Comm the garbage rate increase for the August 26 Council meeting. Motion 8/21/74 carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilman Pub Hrng williams voting no. . Mayor Anderson asked that information be obtained from the County with regard to ~ tax rate necessary to support the proposed garbage disposal serial levy. And ~' Councilwoman Beal said she would like to hear what the garbage haulers were doing with regard to recycling. Mr. weitzel said he was in favor of recycling materials I ~~,!gh it did meana.~oss of income t<? th~_garbage haul~~_____ --- , I Assistant Manager explained staff's review of the economics of property tax levy compared I to increase in garbage haulers' fees indicated a "great state of flux." County calcula- tions based on present estimates of current true cash values anticipated an increase Ion a $20,000 home at $4.80 as compared to the haulers' fees increase of $3.60. However, there was difficulty in defining the average garbage customer - determining what would j be the average number of cans per pickup because of variance from week to week. And with determining value of a typical home - if for instance the average value was juggled downward to $15,000 the increase in tax levy would be no more than the incr~ased users' ,fees, thereby becoming more palatable to owners of low value properties. To add to the ! changing situation, Lane County experienced a 40% droppoff of individuals going to the ! dump site during the period after the serial levy expired; at the same time there was ! a decline in the revenues from fees charged commercial haulers. And one commercial , hauler, .he said, indicated the full 30~ adjustment was not needed. Further report was : i received from the Garbage Board that with some reluctance they would recommend referring i ~ the question of rate increase back to staff for more thorough evaluation and audit of \ \ costs of the haulers' operations requesting a recommendation on the proposed rate adjust- _~ I .~_ : ments. Assistant Manager said it was recognized that the commercial haulers were having _ I to absorb a substantial increase in costs for dumping, and the County was asked to carry' those costs while the evaluation process was going on so that any costs now experienced by the haulers could be taken into consideration in setting any modif:ied rates. J, Public hearing was opened. --,-'--'-'~---- .-.-- - ...-.. -' ---'~-- 8/26/74 - 11 "304