Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e Mr. Nicholson asked that this issue be added to the work plan. In response <br /> to questions, he clarified his recent memo to the council requesting that he <br /> present a proposal to amend a section of the Eugene Code in order to give <br /> further guidance to the Solid Waste and Recycling Board for the upcoming <br /> rate-setting process. <br /> Mr. Gleason explained that the board's current focus is on developing a <br /> long-term approach to solid waste and recycling. While he saw merit in some <br /> of Mr. Nicholson's ideas regarding the rate analysis, he said that staff <br /> cannot work on broader issues and the rate analysis at the same time. <br /> Councilors discussed Mr. Nicholson's memo. Ms. Ehrman understood that public <br /> concern was related to the buying out of companies and the freedom to choose <br /> which hauler to provide service. <br /> Mr. Boles said that the council could provide direction in response to man- <br /> dates required under Senate Bill 66, and, in conjunction with this, address <br /> the general rate-setting process. <br /> In response to concern expressed by Mr. Gleason, Mr. Nicholson said the board <br /> needs some gUidance in developing a rate structure that will allow haulers to <br /> achieve the national prevailing rate of profit. <br /> Councilors agreed to revisit this issue at a future work session. <br /> e IV. PROCESS SESSION <br /> A. Revisit the Role and Purpose of the Citizen Involvement <br /> Committee (CIC) <br /> Mr. Robinette explained that he raised this issue because he understood that <br /> the CIC's citizen involvement processes had not been adopted by council. <br /> Mr. Boles clarified that the council has reviewed those processes and is <br /> scheduled to review the CIC annual work plan at the October 28 work session. <br /> B. Continue Discussion of Staff Presentations <br /> Mr. Nicholson expressed concern about a lack of follow-up and evaluation of <br /> policies after they are implemented. <br /> Mr. MacDonald reported criticisms from his constituents about the council <br /> allowing staff too much leeway in implementing policy. <br /> Mr. Boles felt that where there has been a clear mechanism for policy imple- <br /> mentation, there has been an effective mechanism for evaluation. <br /> Mr. Gleason explained that the council's direction on a policy can shift <br /> after it has been implemented. He said the way this is handled could appear <br /> as staff inconsistency. Responding to concern expressed by Mr. MacDonald <br /> about evaluations being time-intensive, Mr. Gleason said that full-time <br /> e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 25, 1991 Page 8 <br />