Laserfiche WebLink
volume-based system, using bags and/or stickers. <br /> <br /> Ms. Angela Glomm, President of Charlottesville Albemarle <br />Recycle Together (CART), stated that CART supports a <br />combination of the two proposals under consideration, <br />removing the cost of solid waste from the tax rate and <br />charging a volume based user fee on 100% of the cost, which <br />would give the maximum incentive for source reduction. Ms. <br />Glomm stated that concerns of opponents of volume based fees <br />who say the fees will be unfair to low income groups and <br />large families can be addressed by providing subsidies to <br />qualifying households as is done in other cities. Ms. Glomm <br />added that the experience of other cities demonstrates that <br />monitoring and prompt response to complaints have lessened <br />problems with illegal dumping~and garbage can thievery. Ms. <br />Glomm offered the City ithe support and assistance of CART as <br />it continues to deal with the~solid waste issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Frederick Schmidt of 312 Chestnut Street, raised the <br />following questions: 1) what is the life of the landfill? 2) <br />how much of the increased cost of disposal is from State <br />mandates? 3) what would the net effect to renters be of the <br />two proposals? and 4) why is a decision being made on <br />residential fees before a decision on commercial fees? <br /> <br /> Ms. Judith Mueller, Director of Public Works, stated <br />that engineering work recently completed revealed that the <br />landfill has a ten to twelve year life after January of 1994, <br />without factoring in recycling. Ms. Mueller stated that she <br />did not have figures available,~but the main increase in <br />disposal costs is.due to State mandates. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wade Tremblay, owner of Wade Apartments, stated that <br />most of his 350 apartment units are served by dumpsters. Mr. <br />Tremblay supported Mr. Woodard's previous statement favoring <br />the flat fee option, with the tax rate reduction of 11 cents. <br />Mr. Tremblay expressed concern with illegal dumping and <br />encouraged the Council to adopt a fair and equitable system <br />for recycling as well as trash collection, noting that <br />recycling is not offered to dumpster users in residential <br />areas. <br /> <br /> As there were no other speakers the public hearing was <br />closed. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Ms. Ingels <br />stated that a preliminary estimate of the administrative cost <br />of the flat fee proposal was ~210,000 to $220,000. Ms. <br />Ingels stated that it was unknown whether the existing system <br />could be modified to add the fee to the utility bill and <br />there would be start-up costs associated with customer <br />verification. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever requested that Ms. Ingels review the <br />administrative cost for both proposals. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ingels stated that the initial cost of the second <br />option, including purchasing bags and stickers, is estimated <br />to be in excess of $200,000. Ms. Ingels stated that she <br />estimated approximately 75% of the administrative cost of <br />option one would be recurring. <br /> <br /> Responding to concerns expressed by Councilors with the <br />high administrative costs estimated, Ms. Rita Scott, Director <br />of Finance, stated that she has been told that adding the <br />flat fee to the utility bills would be a major re-write to <br />the system, if the change could be made at all. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she had nOt yet made a decision <br />on the issue and appreciated comments made by the public. ! <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt the public would have <br />difficulty dealing with so many changes and expressed concern <br /> <br /> <br />