CC Minutes - 05/24/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson noted that commercial rates had stayed the same over the last decade while residential rates had been raised a couple of times. She wanted to keep residential costs in the forefront of the discussion. She was not opposed outright to a cross subsidy, noting that the telephone system worked in a similar manner before deregulation. She had asked if the costs could be reduced in November 1999, and was disappointed they had not gone down. She pointed out, however, that a comparison of Eugene's costs with other communities showed it was not out of line compared to cities such as Gresham, etc. Ms. Nathanson asked why a 65-gallon cart was being recommended. She wondered if a smaller container would reduce monthly costs to the customer. Mr. Hobson said that the difference in the cost of the cart was insignificant, it would be a negligible cost on the program. The larger cart allowed residents to keep their yards free of debris. Ms. Nathanson expressed interest in knowing the costs of administering the program using different exemption options. Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Meisner about the need to study the issue of exclusive franchise districts to avoid wear and tear on the streets, excessive noise, and extra cost. Ms. Nathanson wanted to know how multiple-family residential units were taken into account in the proposal. Ms. Young said that it depended the size of a development; those using large refuse bins were charged commercial rates. Ms. Nathanson asked how residents of such developments would benefit from the proposed program, and asked if there was an "in-between" option that would allow a multi-family development to participate fairly. Ms. Young said that the more people who were exempted from the program, the higher the cost; under a universal program, service to the individual and the benefit to the community were balanced. Ms. Taylor said that $3 was a lot of money to some residents. She was also concerned about exemptions, thinking people would choose to be exempted and the program would be less effective. She wanted to bring the residential rates down before the program was implemented. Regarding the issue of fairness, she pointed out that those with concrete yards were contributing more run off and pollution to the storm system. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to require haulers to provide universal, biweekly curbside yard debris collection service to residential customers, with partial subsidy from a commercial excise tax. Mr. Rayor suggested that commercial rates had not risen because the rate studies were not adequate. He questioned using the excise tax concept to bring the rates into balance and said he would like to see the recent rate studies. He suggested identifying the smallest users and exempting them from the charge, and also of providing a way for people to apply for the exemption. He concurred with Mr. Meisner and Ms. Nathanson about the need for the City to examine franchising options from a "big picture" view that encompassed energy use and the wear and tear on streets. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the motion by dropping the phrase "partial subsidy from a commercial excise tax" and replacing it MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 8 Work Session