06/17/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Therefore, the City can now incorporate the user fee schedule into the code, e which will enable consistent regulation to occur as it was intended. An amend- ment to section 3.255 merely clarifies the requirement of the garbage haulers for provision of financial information on an annual basis. The amendment to section 8, paragraphs 1 and 2, addresses language and would be inserting "worker" in place of "men." She noted that Wally Swanson, chair of the Garbage Board, is present if additional information is necessary. Ms. Miller asked why the dump site fee is being included as part of the City Code. Ms. Grondona stated that this was discussed at the Garbage Board meeting. The fee has varied because of equipment efficiency and now the fee is based on tonnage and there will be no variances. Ms. Miller asked if it is being recom- mended that the user get a prorated charge. Ms. Grondona stated that the exact County fee for one can per week is $1.10. Ms. Miller asked if people's charges may vary. Ms. Grondona stated that that occurs depending upon how many cans are picked up, but the same methodology would apply per can. Ms. Miller asked if that fee will add up to what the hauler has to pay. Ms. Grondona stated that current information shows that it would be what the hauler has to pay. The County had provided information which substantiates that. Ms. Miller asked if the haulers are in agreement. Ms. Grondona stated that some of the haulers were present and they could address that question. Ms. Wooten asked if there would be less waste because of higher fees and if there would be any incentive to reduce the amount of refuse. Ms. Grondona stated that that was not discussed at the Garbage Board meeting. Public hearing was opened. e Bob Fenstermacher, 2267 Olive, stated that he is manager of Sani-Pac. He is speaking in favor of the proposed increase. The basic rate being proposed is $4.90 for the service with an additional $1.10 for the County fee, which is a pass-through fee for each 32-gallon can. The rate increase is 8.9 percent. Since the County fee of $1.10 is remaining the same, the actual proposed rate increase being requested is only 7.1 percent on the basic rate. Ms. Mi 11 er asked if their firm had kept track of how much money they had billed customers for the County fee and if that works out to what the County charges the haulers. She would like to know if it is really a pass-through fee. Mr. Fenstermacher responded that it is very easy to determine what they pay the County and they also know what they bill their customers and it comes out the same. By using a " rat i 0, they had been ab 1 e to provi de a rebate to their customers, until the County started charging by the ton, because their equipment is very efficient. The County determined that the charges would be based on the number of tons and determined the differential, which is based on $16 per ton. This works out almost exactly to what the customers are charged. Waste is heavier when wet so sometimes they are charged more than when the waste is light during the summer, but on an annual basis it works out. Ms. Miller asked if he foresaw a reduction in the amount of waste picked up. Mr. Fenstermacher responded that at this time there has been no reduction, although that is a possibility. They did notice a decrease in the amount of waste when the County began charging a fee. Ms. Wooten asked what the average amount of waste per household is in Eugene. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 17, 1981 Page 6