Laserfiche WebLink
service, in spite of fees designed to pay for the additional cost. Some people liked knowing they were working <br />with a small hauler and that when they called the office they knew the staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if designated routes would prohibit haulers from seeking additional customers. Mr. Hobson <br />said it would from the standpoint of haulers growing their business by securing existing additional accounts. <br />He noted that growth comes from adding services. Some haulers could purchase another hauler's business to <br />grow, as had happened in Portland since it went to a franchise system. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor confirmed the target profit margin was 11 percent. She asked if it could be lower. Ms. Young said <br />that staff reviewed the profit standards with a citizen advisory committee in 1998, and based on the <br />information received at that time, the 11 percent pre-tax profit figure was established. She said that no change <br />had been contemplated, but it could be changed. She did not think it would make a significant difference in the <br />rates for residential accounts. If the rates were blended, the last analysis showed the combined profit for all <br />but one of the haulers would be above 11 percent. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Young said that the haulers now pay a percentage of their <br />revenue minus the tipping fee to the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he received comments from constituents about the value of choice, but he could see the <br />advantages of franchising the system as well. He thought that the system should be open for the time being <br />but should be moving toward an exclusive system that had all the haulers on board, and that, in turn, would <br />serve to bring the public on board. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to change the <br /> method of solid waste and recycling collection rate calculation to blend commercial and <br /> residential expenses. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He said that it would restore the system to what it was before 1989, and the <br />haulers had been able to work with the system at that time. It was an approach that was typical of most <br />Oregon cities. He thought, from the focus groups, there would not be much public resistance. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Kelly. She said that the approach was not unusual, and would help to delay <br />future residential increases. She thought that ten years was too long between commercial rate increases when <br />residential rates had been raised several times. She regretted the topic had not been managed in a more <br />intentional way by the council and organization. Ms. Nathanson said if the council had considered the <br />curbside yard debris program and the agenda item on the same time line, she did not think the City would have <br />had to raise rates for the yard debris program as much or at all. She acknowledged, however, that the motion <br />would result in rate relief in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart noted his agreement with previous speakers. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Young said that the haulers supported the staff <br />recommendation if the status quo was maintained. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion as a good idea. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />