Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

operations and maintenance funding gaps currently faced by the City. Mr. Pryor thanked the staff for their information and the diligence of their research regarding the matter. He disagreed that people might try to find ways to illegally dump their garbage or find other ways to circumvent local garbage service practices as a result of the surcharge but felt that the cost of the surcharge was unfortunately still going to be passed down to average consumers. He suggested that a City transportation utility might be a more equitable way to generate revenue for the City. Ms. Ortiz was frustrated that many of the same concerns from previous council and budget committee meetings were being raised regarding the solid waste collection surcharge with little advancement. She hoped that a motion on the matter might finally be put forth. Mr. Zelenka noted that local garbage haulers had recently increased their fees in order to cover their own increased costs by double the amount being suggested by the City and had seen absolutely no decrease in the amount of people using the service. He also noted that a recent editorial in the Register-Guard had reflected that many funding sources that used to go towards repairing and maintaining local roadways had been taken away and not replaced. He felt that the solid waste collection surcharge represented a fair and equitable revenue source that would be easy to admini- strate. Mr. Zelenka commented that state funds from HB 2001 would not be seen locally for more than a year if in fact the bill actually passed. Ms. Piercy noted that the overwhelming indication from the public and the City’s budget committee had been that the repair and maintenance of local roadways was of paramount importance. She further maintained that if citizens were to use smaller garbage containers, or similarly reduce their level of garbage service, that would not necessarily be bad for the community. Ms. Piercy expressed that the City was currently prohibited from implementing a vehicle registration fee as Ms. Taylor had previously suggested. Ms. Piercy read the motion that had been recently passed by the Budget Committee: “Move that the Budget Committee recommend that the City Council impose a 5% transportation surcharge on solid waste haulers to generate an estimated $900,000 for road maintenance and operations. All monies collected are to be designated to local streets for operations and maintenance. Should the City receive any extra road funding from state or other sources in the 2010 budget cycle, that money should be used first to offset the fees as a priority in order to rescind the surcharge.” Mr. Pryor felt that the solid waste collection surcharge was not the right mechanism to address the operations and maintenance funding gaps and maintained that the City should continue to explore the use of a transportation utility fee. Mr. Clark maintained that the solid waste collection surcharge represented a short term fix to the operations and that maintenance funding problems and other state funding mechanisms might provide more long-term solutions. Mr. Clark indicated he would be willing to reconstitute a subcommittee of the council to explore long- term funding solutions for operations and maintenance funding. Mr. Zelenka expressed that foregoing the solid waste collection surcharge would cause a serious service reduction with respect to local roadways and amounted to a significant step backwards with regards to the City’s responsibility to maintain local roadways. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 10, 2009 Page 6 Work Session