CC Minutes - 04/20/09 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

used heavy vehicles like recreational vehicles and sport utility vehicles. She said it did not appear to be an all-inclusive, fairly assessed surcharge; the solid waste haulers should not be singled out. David Van Sickle , Grove Street, Eugene, said he was a County resident and the garbage surcharge was actually a pass-through tax and taxation without representation. He bought fuel in the City and paid the gas tax and asked that the City not come to his home and tax one of his purchases. He suggested the ordinance apply only to business inside the City or taxes collected from County residents be forwarded to the County for its road fund. He cautioned that enacting the ordinance could have legal ramifications. Zachary Vishanoff , Eugene, Ward 3, thought the surcharge was part of the sustainability initiative partly because sustainability was a multi-faceted, eco-elitist way of taxing people. He suggested that the council pursued “garbage” public policy and by reforming bad public policy there would be more funds to fix the roads. He pointed to the amount of funds spent on urban renewal, multi-family property tax exemptions, urban villages and increased density and Multi-way Boulevard planning. He urged the council to look at the larger budget issues and priorities and allow citizens to plan their own neighborhoods. He said if the budgeting process was simpler and all the money went into a General Fund, street repairs could be funded first. Brian Bales , Eugene, co-owner of Royal Refuse Service, spoke in opposition to the surcharge. He said it was difficult to connect the amount of garbage generated to road use. Two houses on the same street might have different sized garbage containers and would pay different surcharges, yet the same truck drove by and picked up the garbage. He felt there was no equity in the surcharge. He estimated that his customers would see a $6.00 to $9.00 increase in their monthly garbage bill; comparing that to a two-cent gas tax, it represented 300 to 450 gallons of gas. He said the Bethel School District was a customer and would face a $450 per month increase at a time when schools did not need additional costs. He was concerned that customers would migrate to smaller container sizes, which would decrease his revenues and potentially result in inappropriate disposal of garbage. He said collection and reporting of the tax would also represent a significant administrative burden for his company. He urged the City to consider more equitable and sustainable ways to increase its revenue. Ann Klemp , Blachly, Oregon, said she owned rental property in Eugene and the surcharge would be passed on to her; she could pay the difference or pass it on to her renters. She said 30 percent of her tenants had lost their jobs and several were on disability; it would be very difficult for them to pay an additional amount. She said new taxes should be deferred until the economy had recovered and an equitable tax could be established. John Barofsky , Hubbard Lane, Eugene, Ward 3, spoke in favor of the surcharge. He noted that the City had guaranteed garbage haulers a fair profit when establishing rates and the true costs of hauling garbage included a number of things such as landfill fees, equipment, fuel and damage to infrastructure. He said the council’s subcommittee had explored ways to capture revenue from the other heavy trucks using residential streets but determined it could not be done. He felt it was his duty to pay the costs of hauling garbage and the City should not subsidize paying for street repairs. He said having garbage hauled from his home or business was a service he enjoyed and he should have to pay the true cost of that. He noted that a majority of the General Fund was used for public safety and other services valued by the community and using the General Fund to pay for road repairs would require cuts to those services. He felt the surcharge was a fair approach. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 20, 2009 Page 5 Public Hearing