Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Fenstermacher stated that most families are one-can households. He stated <br /> e that when one looks at the amount of service provided to the households, this is <br /> a very reasonable charge. He asked where else one could have someone drive to a <br /> residential site on a weekly basis with expensive equipment to pick up waste and <br /> remove it to a remote site 4.33 times a month and only charge $4.90. <br /> Scott Bales, 88686 Oak Hill Cemetery Road, stated that he is part owner of Royal <br /> Refuse. They have been experiencing double-digit inflation with the products <br /> they use to provide the service to their customers. However, he has questions <br /> about incorporating the County fee into this proposal. Sani-Pac representatives <br /> noted that they had been giving a rebate to their customers and Royal Refuse is <br /> able to do that. He is not sure that people understand what has happened. In <br /> July, when the County started charging the fee, there was a difference between <br /> what was collected from the customers to cover this fee and what the haulers <br /> paid at the dump site. <br /> Gary Schafer, 3938 Josh Street, stated that he is with ACME Disposal Service. <br /> He supports the increase. Their firm is a small business with two employees and <br /> it is impossible for them to absorb the dump fee without the ability to pass <br /> those charges on to the customers. He feels the dump fee is in line with what <br /> they are charging their customers. He indicated that he had kept count of the <br /> number of cans he picked up and it worked out exactly. <br /> Lee Johnson, 2897 Tomahawk Lane, stated that he feels this is a reasonable <br /> request. He has looked at his records as a customer from October 1975 to <br /> July 31, 1980. His total garbage collection fees have increased 100 percent <br /> e within that four-year period. The percentage of increase per year has been <br /> 24.39 percent, which he feels is excessive. However, at this time, the Garbage <br /> Board has done a good job of keeping the rates down. He indicated that the <br /> company which provides his service has two small vehicles which pick up and dump <br /> into a larger truck. This is a depression and many people will work cheaply, so <br /> perhaps that is why they can afford three people for one street. He does not <br /> know how else they could add to their service. He feels the previous rate <br /> increases were excessive but that this one is in line. <br /> There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. <br /> CB 2322--An ordinance concerning garbage services; amending Section 3.255 <br /> of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 3 to 9 of Ordinance <br /> No. 18629; establishing new rates for garbage services; and <br /> declaring an emergency. <br /> Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the bill be read the <br /> \ second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent <br /> ,\ of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. <br /> Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. <br /> Ms. Wooten asked if the user fee automatically increases to the consumer if it <br /> is raised by the County. Ms. Grondona responded that it would have to come back <br /> before the council in order to increase the amount charged to the customer. Ms. <br /> Wooten stated that she understood that this fee would be fixed, unless it would <br /> be reconsidered at a later time by the council. Ms. Miller felt that the reason <br /> e that this went so smoothly was due to the good financial accounting system. <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 17, 1981 Page 7 <br />