CC Minutes - 11/08/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

center of the community, it was distant from the courts and the jail. He believed that the cost of a new police facility was likely to exceed the sale price of the lot south of City Hall. Mr. Pap~ indicated the committee requested an analysis of a downtown police site. Mr. Johnson added the analysis would address both cost and advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Meisner said that citizens often express long-term goals and values that conflict with the present, or shod-term, means to realize those goals and values. For example, the public opposes urban sprawl while often also opposing increased density in their neighborhoods. In this case, the council was hearing that the federal courthouse should not be allowed on the 6th Avenue site but, at best, the public was likely to split on the issue of funding a new city hall. Mr. Meisner said that the council had no authority to mandate a no-build option to the federal government, and if it said no to the city hall site, it was guaranteeing the location of the courthouse on the 6th avenue site, which the public was very opposed to. Mr. Meisner concluded that there was no easy answer. Mr. Meisner preferred a phrased approach, and suggested it would be easiest and quickest to take care of the fire function, followed by the police function, followed by a back-up plan for City Hall. B.Work Session: Curbside Yard Debris Collection Program Mr. Pap~ recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest. Nancy Young of the Planning and Development Department provided the staff presentation. She described the scope of the current program, noting it was costly and had a Iow participation rate in the two years of operation. Participation was limited by cost, preparation standards, and convenience of collection times. Ms. Young said that during the 1998 rate review, a department advisory committee recommended a regular, more frequent program. Yard debris represents approximately ten percent of all material directed to the land fill. It was difficult to estimate the amount of debris that would be collected with a more frequent program, but she believed it would be approximately 10,000 tons, of which half was new recovery or material now being sent to the landfill. Ms. Young recommended that the current curbside yard debris collection program be dropped and that universal service established. The cost of service would be spread among all residential collection customers in a manner similar to the way recycling is paid for. Pick-up would occur every two weeks throughout the year, and a suitably sized 65-gallon container would be provided to customers by the haulers. She noted that Eugene was the only mid-sized city in the Willamette Valley that did not offer curbside yard debris service. She estimated the cost at $2.95 to $3.50 monthly per residential customer. The rate would be based on the timing of implementation and the participation rate. A survey of residential customers indicated that 45 percent were willing to pay a $3 per month charge; 39 percent were not, and the remainder were undecided. Ms. Young said that yard debris collection may cause some residents to stop composting. The bi- weekly collection may help stem the amount of material diverted from composting. Other customers who compost all materials on site may be unhappy being charged for a service they do not use. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m.