02/13/1989 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ Responding to a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Gleason reported that regulation within the urban growth boundary is being discussed with County staff . While he agreed with parts of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Holmer objected to delegating authority to set rates and determine who shall be licensed to the City Manager. Mr. Holmer called attention to the declaration of public policy in the ordinance and questioned the lack of definition provided for the terms IIjust and reasonable.1I He referred to item 1. (4)(d) in the Administrative Rules which specified that reasonableness of the proposed rate schedule would be considered in light of lIa minimum rate sufficient to provide a ten percent rate of return above the average cost of all licenses providing the collection service." Mr. Holmer said that kind of provision should be part of the ordinance because it establishes City policy. e Ms. Utecht responded that the criteria referred to by Mr. Holmer was listed on page 12 of the ordinance and was repeated in the administrative rules for the benefit of potential licensees or applicants. Mr. Holmer suggested that the criteria were too numerous. Mr. Bennett questioned the rationale for specifying that a ten-percent rate of return is reasonable and preferred leaving reasonable rate undefined. Mr. Boles expressed concern regarding the rate structure and what he considered ambigUity about the review of that structure. Mr. Boles was e emphatic that rates should be structured to encourage recycling. Mr. Holmer referred to Section 3.247 (3) (page 8) of the ordinance regarding the issuance of licenses and questioned the authority of the City Manager to deny additional limited licenses recommended by an appointed board. Ms. Utecht explained that an applicant's inability to meet insurance requirements, sign a hold-harmless agreement, or pay licensing fees may not be known until after the board's review of the application. e Mr. Holmer suggested amending this section of the ordinance to identify those reasons for the manager's action. Mr. Sercombe said the intent of the section in question was that the criteria that would govern the manager's decision would be the same criteria listed in subsection two of that section to guide the decision making of the administrative board. Answering Ms. Ehrman's inquiry, Ms. Utecht said appeals are covered in Chapter Three with the decision of the Hearings Official being final. Ms. Ehrman expressed appreciation for the industry's participation in developing the ordinance. Ms. Bascom reminded the council of its earlier decision to avoid a franchise system or provision of solid waste disposal as a municipal service. Referring to 3.265 (3), Mr. Holmer questioned granting a five-year license term to those licensees for whom the City Manager has elected not to extend e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 13, 1989 Page 3