Laserfiche WebLink
with the phrase "with an exemption mechanism reflecting council <br /> discussion." The motion to amend passed, 5:1; Ms. Taylor voting no. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Ms. Young said that commercial rates had not <br />increased, and the targeted rate had been exceeded. The City had made different attempts to <br />reduce the rate of return by requiring haulers to offer more programs and by raising license fees. <br />Mr. Johnson noted that staff was advised in such matters by a citizen advisory committee. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the providers had been keeping their costs down, which accounted for <br />the lack of a rate increase. Ms. Young responded that commercial service was much more <br />efficient to deliver than residential service. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr suggested that the additional profit generated on the commercial side offset some of the <br />costs of serving residential customers. Ms. Young said that the City's system had haulers with <br />many commercial customers but no residential, and some with more residential than commercial. <br />A subsidy brings some haulers out of balance, which led to the need to look more <br />comprehensively at the system. <br /> <br /> The main motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />D. Work Session: Growth Management Implementation Status Report 2000 <br /> <br />Jim Croteau, Planning and Development Department, reviewed a document included in the <br />council's meeting packet entitled Growth Management Implementation Policies, Status Report <br />20000, and called the council's attention to a list of projects in that document that were intended <br />to implement the council's Growth Management Study policies. Acknowledging that individual <br />councilors may support projects not on the list yet, he said that a tremendous amount of work <br />had been done. Mr. Croteau reviewed the list of projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson commented that the City organization was very busy. Acknowledging the lead <br />role taken by Planning and Development Department, she noted the multi-department effort that <br />it required to implement the study policies. Ms. Nathanson said that the organization was doing <br />a lot of good things to achieve its goals. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Johnson said that it was possible work on the East <br />Bank Bicycle Trail could go forward this year. The application for the bicycle path had been <br />withdrawn. Ms. Taylor asked about the status of the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Croteau said <br />that the West Eugene Parkway was awaiting a final SEIS (Supplemental Environmental Impact <br />Statement), but little else was occurring. Planning Division Director Jan Childs said that the final <br />SEIS was still awaiting release; she expected it in the next few months. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked staff for the report. He said that the City was making progress but was moving <br />painfully slowly on many projects since the adoption of the Growth Management Study policies. <br />He said that if the City was serious about the study, it should budget for those priorities in the <br />annual budget, and not rely on grant funding to the extent it was. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly requested information on the two nodal pilots. Ms. Childs said that a Planning <br />Commission public hearing on the Royal Node project was scheduled for July 7. She said that <br />the project was delayed by the discovery of more extensive wetlands on the site than was <br />previously supposed to exist. The Chambers node project was delayed pending resolution of the <br />alignment of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system through the area. She said that the City was <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 24, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />