Laserfiche WebLink
257 <br /> <br />added that he felt the proposed dumpster fee was a <br />discriminatory policy and was a disincentive for keeping <br />housing costs down. <br /> <br /> As there were no other speakers the public hearing was <br /> closed. <br /> <br />ORDINANCE: DUMPSTER COLLECTION FEE <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano questioned whether any changes had been made <br />in the proposed fee as a result of staff meeting with <br />apartment managers. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ingels replied that no changes were made since most <br />comments from the aPartment managers_dealt with the fairness <br />issue of the policy. <br /> <br /> Mrl Toscano noted thatlthe increased cost of trash - <br />disposal had been covered in_the cUrrent budget by taking <br />money from the capital budget and stresSed the-need to.find <br />funds next year, most likely in the form of residential <br />collection fees,.to fund~_the increased cOst. <br /> <br /> Ms. ~Slaughter noted that most cities charge extra for <br />commercial trash collection. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ingels stated that most cities do not even provide <br />commercial trash collection. <br /> <br /> -Ms. Slaughter noted~that imposing dumpster .fees is the <br />first step of a plan to phase-in fees~ Ms~ Slaughter stated <br />that she thought commercial businesses should use containers <br />if they do~not use dumpsters for aesthetic reasons. Ms. <br />Slaughter asked whether staff are lOoking into the scale <br />system for collection. · ~ <br /> <br /> Ms. Ingels replied~that work needs to be done on the <br />technical feasibility of the scale system. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever on the issue <br />of discrimination of the fee pOliCy, Mr Gouldman stated that <br />he felt the policy was defensible as part of an orderly plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt the equity issue was <br />handled as. best as~could~ibe by the_phasing in.Plan and inoted <br />that Council was committed to prOviding recycling and <br />eventually charging some sort of fee to all generators of <br />solid waste. Ms. Waters moved the ordinance and requested <br />that staff move quickly to draft an iOrdinance to. Provide ~ <br />protection from illegal use of dumpsters. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman recommended~three minor changes to the <br />ordinance as presented to CoUncil: I) aUtomObile parts and <br />brush over 3 ~feet~will not be Picked~up; 2) substitute the <br />word "charge~" and 3) change the effective date to September <br />16th. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters moved the]Ordinance, as amended, and Ms. <br />Slaughter seconded the motion. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano .expressed~c~oncer~ about,t-he pu~blic's <br />perception~of Council!s intentions, regarding the fees, noting <br />that he i-s~wi~ling to ~have~use~ fees ~for ~curbside residential <br />collection in the~future. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards agreed that eventually everyone will share <br />in the increa~sed~cost3of trash~.dispo-sal'. <br /> <br /> The ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND <br />REORDAIN SECTIONS 26-26' AND ~26-31, AND TO~D~D A NE~ ARTICLE <br />TO CHAPTER 26, OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, <br />1990, AS AMENDED, RELATED TO IMPOSITION OF USER FEES FOR <br />COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION" was offered and carried over to <br /> <br /> <br />