Laserfiche WebLink
agreement with a contract amount for serving the territory to which they were assigned. Mr. <br />Rayor suggested that would result in a bureaucracy none of the councilors contemplated. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he was confused by the options described in the meeting packet and would <br />have appreciated a matrix showing the attributes of each. Ms. Young reviewed the details of <br />each of the options. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that it sounded as though once the City chose the franchise approach, haulers <br />had no opportunity to grow. Mr. Hobson said that business growth would occur through <br />annexation and the provision of additional services. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's assessment of the first motion. He said that his street <br />was served by multiple companies traveling back and forth down a dead-end road to serve <br />multiple customers. Efficiencies of cost system wide could be realized through another <br />approach. Mr. Meisner said that while the City guaranteed a return on investment, it did not <br />factor in return on capital investment, creating a disincentive in a sense. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted that when the council was referring to commercial use, in this case that <br />included all multi-unit housing in the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if progressivity applied to commercial hauling as well as residential hauling. <br />Ms. Young said no. She added that the rates for commercial service had not changed in ten <br />years. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding haulers' investments in capital equipment <br />and the City's rate setting process, Mr. Hobson offered as an example the City's yard debris <br />program. The program required the haulers to purchase new equipment, such as cads and <br />vehicles, and in setting the rates for the service staff included the annual depreciation of that <br />equipment. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey urged the council to involve the haulers in any changes it contemplated. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> begin working on a process to redesign the garbage hauling system, moving <br /> toward exclusive territories and competitive bidding, using public comment <br /> and other processes before returning to the council with a final proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion, saying it seemed to accurately summarize the sentiments <br />expressed by councilors. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said he would not support the motion. He thought that the council was on a "slippery <br />slope" in that competition was not always equal, as illustrated by Mr. Kelly's remarks about the <br />union status of the largest employer, and the result of merely accepting competitive bids and <br />establishing territories could be "bare bones" service to the community. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 4:2; Mr. Fart and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to change the policy to set <br /> rates by combining residential and commercial service expenses identified in <br /> a competitive procurement process and pay haulers a contracted amount. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />