Laserfiche WebLink
rules. Ms. Young said that staff modeled the ordinance on the ordinances of other cities, which <br />generally have dedicated franchises; in those situations, the customer responsibilities are codified <br />and the hauler responsibilities spelled out in the contract between the hauler and the municipality. <br />She perceived no problem in amending the ordinance. Mr. Kelly had no preference but wanted <br />both in the same place. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said that another reason for the proposed <br />structure was that the haulers have and use the administrative rules every day, and the public <br />does not; the code was more accessible to the public. Mr. Kelly said that an issue to consider <br />was that of who manages the changes to the hauler and customer responsibilities, and he thought <br />that should be the same entity. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that if literally read, it appeared Section 3.995 of the code would mandate $500 daily <br />fines on residents who did not put their trash can within three feet of the curb. Ms. Young said <br />that the intent was to establish standards for the haulers rather than penalties on residents. <br />Normally, enforcement occurred on a complaint basis. Mr. Kelly asked that legal counsel look at <br />that issue and consider text adjustments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if there had been follow-up to his question in June 2001 about whether there could <br />be more openness in the rate-setting process, adding that the shift of the rate criteria from the <br />code to the administrative rules made it seem like a less open process. Ms. Young responded <br />that the manual would help in the process of greater understanding. The manual was in the <br />process of being developed now. She said she would get back to the council with more <br />information. <br /> <br />Responding to a concern expressed by Ms. Bettman about the deletion of the mention of <br />landscape contractors in Section 3.245(d), Ms. Young said that the deletion had been inadvertant <br />and staff would put it back into the ordinance. <br /> <br />Referring to Section 3.247(1), Ms. Bettman asked if, through attrition, the ordinance would <br />accomplish something (the creation of a single-hauler franchise) that the council had not agreed <br />by policy to do. She did not support the eight-license limit proposed by the staff. Ms. Young <br />pointed out that Section 3.247(2) also provided for the creation of additional licenses were the <br />need demonstrated, and licenses can be transfered from one hauler to another hauler with City <br />approval. Ms. Bettman said that the two sections appear to conflict with each other. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson recalled her concern about establishing the yard debris program before <br />commercial and residential rates were combined, given that the combined rate approach was <br />supposed to decrease residential rates and offset the increase from the yard debris program. It <br />was her expectation that the upcoming rate review would result in, if not actual decreases, delays <br />in the potential for increases over the next few years. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted the seriously degraded condition of City streets and the City's efforts to fund <br />maintenance and preservation. She said that the Public Works director had indicated to her that <br />multiple haulers serving one street contributed to the breakdown of streets. She continued to be <br />concerned about multiple haulers serving the same area. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Kelly's request regarding the hauler and customer responsibilities. She <br />also shared Ms. Bettman's concern about Section 3.247(1). Ms. Young pointed out that the City <br />Charter still precluded a single hauler system. In addition, there had never been a license <br />terminated in the time she had been with the City. She did not believe any haulers were planning <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 10, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />