Laserfiche WebLink
done on the exemptions in terms of the volume collected. Ms. Young said that the issue could be <br />addressed in the ordinance or through the administrative rules. Staff was attempting to present <br />an example in place at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked what would occur with the single commercial hauler that could not afford the <br />cost. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why Eugene residents paid more for garbage than Springfield residents. She <br />asked why rates could not be dropped to those levels so an added fee would not hurt as much. <br />Ms. Young said Springfield's rates were lower because it had a single commercial hauler, and <br />commercial rates subsidized residential rates. Ms. Taylor suggested that Eugene take a <br />comparable approach. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor did not support compost inspectors, thinking the community would not accept them <br />readily. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Young said that staff was recommending the use <br />of 65-gallon cads for program participation. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the proposed ordinance with an exemption mechanism. He expressed <br />support for more comparative information from other communities, suggesting that Eugene's <br />approach might be a hybrid of several approaches. He wanted to make exemptions available to <br />people who deserved them because they did not generate yard debris. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the council should not consider the concept of the commercial excise <br />tax in isolation from other issues. For example, if the commercial haulers were exceeding the <br />allowed rate of return, the rate review should produce lowered rates. Mr. Kelly said that the <br />excise tax appeared to be taking a general concept and applying it to a specific opportunity. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's comments. He said the council must keep the purpose of the <br />program in mind. He said that while he was somewhat troubled by the need for physical <br />inspection of exemptions, there was a financial and environmental cost to the community from <br />not having such inspections in the form of increased waste flow to the landfill. He was not <br />interested in a program without exemptions, or with exemptions by choice, adding that the 21- <br />gallon container may be an indicator of little or no debris, but that would vary with each resident. <br />He agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the need to exempt those who did not contribute to <br />the waste stream. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not object to spreading the cost of a community need. He wanted the City to <br />look seriously at franchising garbage service. He supported Option 1 until the entire question of <br />subsidies and franchises had been explored. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he agreed with the provision of exemptions and was interested to see more <br />information on the type of exemption discussed by Mr. Kelly. He requested more options. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart generally favored the proposal as he wanted to reduce the waste stream going to the <br />landfill to the extent possible. However, he objected to the commercial subsidy proposed for the <br />program. He said that some elements of a business were more profitable than others, and <br />identifying one element of a business to tax could seriously impact the entire business. He <br />believed a $3.50 fee assessed to residents was reasonable for the service. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />