Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to retain the <br /> status quo with modifications with regard to the redesign of the solid waste and <br /> collection system. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson cautioned the council against misinterpreting the survey data. She said that the response <br />mentioned by Mr. Kelly was to an open-ended question which produced a range of responses, skewing the <br />results. She did not think the survey questions were well-designed. While people might be happy with their <br />individual service, she was unhappy with the system because its redundancy of service and higher costs <br />overall. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart supported the motion. He was concerned that the City protect its existing haulers from large outside <br />companies that came into an area and destroyed the viability of existing providers. He asked how the City <br />could ensure that local haulers remained local haulers. He believed that when large outside providers took <br />over, there was generally a diminishment of services. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart recommended that the City consider changing the license period from five to seven years. Ms. Young <br />said that it was likely the City would examine that potential in its review. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor wanted staff to continue meeting with the haulers to optimize the delivery system. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not support the motion. He wanted to move away from the status quo because he did not <br />think the City could afford it. The City needed to do better. He thought Ms. Nathanson's points were well- <br />taken. He thought one could get whatever one wanted from a survey. Mr. Meisner advocated for a more long- <br />term view of the issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to amend the motion by adding the <br /> phrase "and also direct the City Manager to study methods of creating territories." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner urged staffto find some different ways to look at the franchise issue. He liked the concept of <br />geographically based territories with flexible borders, with neighborhoods able to petition to be in or out of a <br />territory. He wanted an examination of ways that competition could occur in a changed context to do away <br />with redundancy and damage to the streets while retaining some opportunities for choice in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he could not support the amendment because it essentially directed staff to do the work it <br />just completed. He asked if there was a way for staff to look at the different ideas that were mentioned by <br />councilors. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Nathanson <br /> voting yes. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed, 4:3; Mr. Rayor, Mr. Meisner, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ rejoined the meeting. <br /> <br />C. Work Session: An Ordinance Concerning Alarm Systems; Renumbering and Amending Section 4.933 <br /> and Adding it to Section 3.005 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Amending and Renumbering Sections <br /> 4.935, 4.936, 4.937 of the Eugene Code, 1971 to 3.105, 3.110, and 3.115; Amending Sections 3.990, <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 11, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />