10/29/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Brown said costs in tneU-lnaustr.y-nad increased more than- 30% and that Sani-pac stood ready to make any information that was needed available. However, they couldn't afford to wait on a full scale investigation if garbage was to be moved. Action on the matter j was needed now, he said. _ Councilman williams asked if the information to .be provided would include .difference in cost between providing commercial and residential services. Mr. Brown noted the difference in operations, the residential collection service requiring a higher invest- ment in labor than in equipment. Information in that regard was given to city staff, he said, but staff was requesting statistical information for comparison between 1971 and 1974 pickup rate which was not available on all companies comprising Sani-pac. Councilman McDonald asked then whether Sani-Pac could be expected to "pu11 out" if the increase was not approved. Mr. Brown answered that the firm couldn't stop collecting refuse. His point was that it was the same as any other business, and at the present time they were operating at "more than 100% of dollar income." Councilman Keller asked if figures were available on the, amount. of residential garbage collected compared to that collected from commercial establishments. He wondered if th=- - - -- ~ -,- -- higher commercial rate increase, which he thought was exorbitant, was requested to offset the loss of income from salvageable items in residential garbage. Mr. Brown referred to "tonnage volume" in the two operations and suggested the Lane County Solid Waste Manage- ment Department might have some good estimates with regard to volumes from each source. He noted there had been a drop in volume - residential because of the trend to recycle, and commercial because of the current slump in the economy. He said they have exact ~ figures on cost of each operation, residential and commercial, the proper mix of customers, = labor, equipment, etc., to make each route pay. No part of the operation was subsidized. Cost was geared to the amount of garbage, he said, and their books would demonstrate that the customer paid for the volume of garbage collected. Manager added that adjusting the commercial rates downward and residential rates upward might affect different haulers differently because some picked up commercial garbage primarily, others picked up almost entirely residential garbage. Assistant Manager stressed the difference between commercial and residential operations - the one having intensive equipment expense, the other in- tensive labor expense, each involving different kinds of cost factors. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to grant the proposed increase for a six-month period and direct staff to bring back to the Council no later Corum than the end of that period cost information to substantiate continuation of 10/23/74 the increase or changes staff would recommend at that time. Pub Hrng Councilwoman Campbell asked whether recycling of materials and loss of income from their sale affected the garbage collectors' profits. i Mayor Jlnderson entered the meeting. Mr. Brown answered that profits were affected because of !ecycling. He cited examples .~ where rise in market value of cardboard and newsprint automatically decreased the amount of refuse piCkup. Councilman llershnersaid he would support the increase as recommended by the Garbage Board, at the same time expressing regret that no Board members was present to discuss the issue. Councilman Murray wondered if there was any way to speed up the rate investigation and whether the issue would be subject to public hearing. Manager said if there was any way to make the report prior to the end of the six-month period it would be done. Assistant Manager added that public hearing was held when .the question was first considered, and testimony was taken, but it might be well to have another to avoid any possible dissen- sion because of action taken now. , Council President Williams ruled that public hearing would be provided pased on the significantly different subject matter under discussion. Councilman Murray was in favor of the motion, then, saying he would reserve final judgment until the hearing. Councilman McDonald said he would vote against it. He didn't approve of making an increase then having to face the possibility of making a change in six months. Mr. Williams restated the motion. Councilwoman Bea1 wondered why the action would not be .~ entered on the consent calendar if the motion approving the increase was acted upon. ~ Manager said his interpretation of the motion if it passed would be that the item would appear in the public hearing section on the October 29th agenda as tentative action ap- proving the increase. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Councilmen McDonald and Keller voting no. :S~" 10/29/74 - 2