10/29/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL October 29,1974 e Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - carried over from October 14, 1974 because of lack of quorum - was called to order by Council President Tom R. Williams in the absence of Mayor Anderson.at 7:30 p.m. on October 29, 1974 in the Council Chamber with other Council members present: James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Wickes Beal, Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, and Robert Wood. Side I (0001) Council President Williams recognized the presence of Boy Scout Troop 316 and their leader, Ken Higgins, and welcomed them in their observance of the Council meeting as part of their activities. I - Public Hearings A. Garbage Rate Increase Proposed Garbage Rate Increase - Copies of memo from the City Manager were previously distributed to Council members explaining the difficulty in making an analysis of equitability of the proposed garbage rate schedule. Comparison of costs and income between the 1971 rates (date of last increase) and the present rates was not meaning- ful because it was impossible to evaluate the 1971 rates. Quality of reoords and e changes in ownerships in the industry would not permit the analysis staff preferred. However, because of increase in costs, members of the garbage industry convinced the Garbage Board that it was an emergency situation and the Board recommended approval of the proposed increase with the understanding that it would be reconsidered as soon as staff was able to make an in-depth financial analysis of firms in the business. Councilman Williams asked if the analysis would covez' comparison between costs of com- mercial and homeowners rates and whether needed co-of>eration from the industry was i anticipated if the six-month increase was granted. Manager answered that staff hoped for a thorough analysis of investment rate, cost of operations, investment in equipment, manpower costs, etc., in.order to be able to make a knowledgeable recomm.endation. He added that with 40 different licensed collectors spanning a whole scale of efficiency in operations the suggested analysis would be necessary if it were to apply equitably across the industry. With regard to co-operation in gaining the necessary information on which to base comparison, Manager noted that the Council had the authori~y to with- draw any increase granted and that would provide leverage. He said co-operation had been assured by some people in the 'industry so long a's the information given was treat~d confidentially. I Councilman Murray asked for clarification of staff position - whether they felt the pro- posed increase and perhaps more was justified, or whether-they questioned that it was -, justified. Manager stated his understanding that thE' Garbage Board felt the increase was justified but that staff when asked by the Council to review the situation felt there. was not sufficient information to be able to say it was justified, particularly with regard to the commercial rate increase. Manager said, in response to Councilman Murray, that there was the possibility, if proper analysis indicated the increase was not justified, the Council could be faced with making a change after the six-month period. Sherm F10gstad, finance director, added that staff found the 10<: increase on the residential pickup reasonable. However, it was not known whether the 1971 rates were reasonable at that time, so it would be difficult to determine whether increase based on those rates was justified. Councilman Keller noted that when the original proposal was brought to the Council he questioned the suggested commercial rates - more than 30% increase across the board. He said he didn't like the ,idea of correcting action six months from now and thought it would be more beneficial to make the analysis before making a decision so that if an increased was granted it could be justified to the community. Councilman McDonald noted his opposition to the increase when it was first proposed on the basis that recycling would lower the cost of garbage pickup to the individual. If people did not make the effort to recycle and demanded garbage service, he said, then they would have to pay for it. He wondered why the commercial haulers were pro- - posing a 30% increase. Neil Brown, attorney representing Sani-pac, recited his recollection of previous action on the proposed increase - to delay until after the County election in which it would be determined whether a free disposal site would be.available or a user fee would be charged. At the same time staff was to follow an auditing procedure to determine whether the in- crease was justified. He said everything requested l,y ci ty . staff had been provided, but staff suggested the proposed rates might be too high and that they couldn't really _IT1f!ke ~ ~ c!_ete.rI11jnati_~~~i!.hout judgm~~t ~(J~] whe_t!3e.r. _ th~_!:.97 !_Eates_wi3:re reasonable. -~ -- --- -.--- 359 10/29/74 - 1