Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> <br />their fair share and receive equal service for trash <br />removal as well as for recycling. <br /> <br /> The Blue Ridge Apartment Council met on Tuesday, <br />October 15, and discussed the proposals under <br />consideration. It is the belief of the Blue Ridge <br />Apartment Council that the proposal as presented by <br />Tom Vandever to charge each household and every <br />business for the true cost of trash removal and <br />disposal, along with a corresponding reduction in the <br />real estate tax rate, would be the best. Recycling <br />provisions should be provided wherever practical on <br />an equal basis. <br /> <br /> Proposals that charge households by the bag <br />would lead to unprecedented improper disposal, <br />including the problems of throwing trash into <br />dumpsters on other properties, taking trash into <br />rural areas, taking trash instead of recyclable <br />materials to recycling centers and other public <br />places, and other similar problems. These problems <br />are avoided by requiring and providing trash removal <br />and recycling for every household and business. <br /> <br /> The feedback that we have gotten from most <br />people about recycling is that they think it is the <br />right thing to do. So long as readily accessible <br />facilities and arrangements are available for <br />recycling most people will recycle regardless of the <br />financial considerations. <br /> <br /> While this proposed system would not reward <br />individual efforts to recycle, the public would <br />instantly become aware of what the true costs of waste <br />removal and recycling really area. This awareness <br />will give a better understanding of the need to <br />recycle and the need to conserve the Ivy Landfill. <br /> <br /> The system that you have proposed addresses many <br />of our concerns and the Blue Ridge Apartment Council <br />supports your efforts to move quickly to institute <br />comprehensive, fair, and equal trash removal and <br />recycling programs in Charlottesville. We look <br />forward to working with you in these efforts. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Woodard <br />stated that he felt dumpster fees should reflect the true <br />cost of trash collection and disPosal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Marilyn Shifflett of 100 Greenbrier Terrace, stated <br />that she felt the flat rate option was neither fair nor <br />equitable to the middle class and that the sticker proposal <br />was not desirable because of the cost to make and sell <br />stickers. Ms. Shifflett recommended that the tax rate be <br />left at its current rate and that a flat fee be levied to <br />fund the remaining amount. <br /> <br /> Mr. Neal Walters, 1201 Little High Street, stated that <br />he opposed the flat fee option and did not think any link <br />existed between the value of property and the amount of trash <br />generated. Mr. Walters stated that the flat fee would be <br />unfair to renters who would not benefit from the proposed tax <br />reduction but would still have to pay the fee. Mr. Walters <br />favored maintaining the current tax rate'and charging a flat <br />$7 fee per househOld. <br /> <br /> Ms. Sandy Snook, representing the League of Women <br />Voters, made the following statement: 1) the League supports <br />policies to reduce the generation and promote the reuse and <br />recycling of solid and hazardous waste; and 2) the League <br />believes a fee directly associated with the amount of trash <br />produced will encourage source reduction and recycling. Ms. <br />Snook stated that the League supports the variable <br /> <br /> <br />