Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner asked staff to estimate the impact of the motion on the residential and commercial <br />rates. Ms. Young believed that theoretically, the current rates could be maintained without an <br />increase. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked Ms. Young to discuss whether it would be possible to subsidize the <br />residential rates with the commercial service without the layer of bureaucracy represented by the <br />competitive procurement process. Ms. Young said she did not believe so, because of the <br />disproportionate distribution of commercial and residential accounts. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson determined from Ms. Bettman that she would be interested in examination of a <br />variety of ways of cross-subsidization. He suggested that the motion be rephrased to allow that <br />to happen. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked why some of the haulers choose not to serve commercial users. Ms. Young <br />responded that she did not know. She suggested that part of the answer could be attributed to <br />equipment owned by the haulers and the ways the routes were scheduled. If a hauler served <br />residential accounts in an area that did not include much commercial businesses, he or she <br />would be unlikely to leave that service area to serve commercial uses. She indicated that staff <br />would ask the haulers for input. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if staff would move forward with cross-subsidization if the motion passed, or if it <br />would address the issue in the same process as the franchise process. Ms. Young said yes to <br />both questions. She confirmed that would not moderate the rate increase in the near term. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if staff was suggesting that rates would be maintained after the establishment of <br />a franchise system. Mr. Hobson said that the haulers would lose some costs from the change, <br />such as billing costs. He suggested a single hauler could do the billing under contract with the <br />other haulers. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart believed the City would be adding bureaucracy to the system and that would add costs <br />to the service and therefore to the consumers. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Johnson's comment, Ms. Nathanson withdrew the motion on the floor. Mr. <br />Kelly withdrew his second. <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> prepare a report, with implementation options, describing how to change to a <br /> rate system where residential and commercial expenses are combined to <br /> determine rates, using public comments and other processes before <br /> returning to the council with a firm proposal. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. <br /> Farr voting no. <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to request the City Manager to <br /> limit the January 1, 2001, residential rate increases to no more than 13 <br /> percent, or to delay any increases other than the yard debris fee, for at least <br /> one year. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly explained the rationale behind the motion, saying because of the ongoing system <br />redesign design, he wanted to postpone the proposed January 2001 rate increase. One of the <br />main components in the rates increase was the anticipation that container sizes would be <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 27, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />