Laserfiche WebLink
14 <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he would favor a system which <br />would cover the cost of solid waste and would encourage <br />recycling and while imposing a flat fee or raising taxes <br />might be simpler it would not address the incentive issue. <br />Mr. Toscano stated that he felt a volume based system would <br />give control to citizens, but was uncertain how much of a <br />financial incentive would be necessary to encourage <br />recycling, and added that he did not know whether funding <br />only the new costs of solid waste with a fee would provide <br />enough of an incentive or whether reducing the rate by two or <br />three cents would provide more of an incentive. Mr. Toscano <br />stated that he would favor a system of subsidy to those who <br />are income eligible. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters questioned the rationale for reducing the tax <br />rate by two or three cents and Mr. Toscano explained that it <br />would make the fee a little higher and would give more of a <br />financial incentive to recycle. Mr. Toscano expressed <br />concern that too high of a fee might encourage illegal <br />dumping. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that leaving the tax rate at its <br />current rate might free up some funds to use for schools and <br />other important needs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix asked 1) how much Ms. Waters expected to <br />generate in the existing tax rate for other purposes; and 2) <br />what fee did Mr. Toscano think would be high enough to be a <br />financial incentive to recycle? <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he did not think the funds <br />should be used for other purposes and Ms. Waters stated that <br />she was not trying to generate new revenue. Mr. Toscano <br />noted that dumpster customers would pay less by maintaining <br />the current tax rate. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he felt the fairness issue has <br />been confused and did not think the people least able to pay <br />a fee and renters are always the same, adding that it could <br />be fairer to renters to reduce the personal property tax <br />rather than real estate tax. Mr. Vandever stated that he <br />felt the incentive issue would be lessened by maintaining the <br />current tax rate. Mr. Vandever stated that he was reluctant <br />to maintain the current tax rate and did not want to use a <br />fee to raise funds for other purposes. Mr. Vandever added <br />that the more he looked at the issue the more he was inclined <br />to support a volume based fee. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he thought the fee should <br />provide an incentive but was concerned about backing all of <br />the cost of solid waste out of the tax rate. Rev. Edwards <br />stated that he tentatively supported a volume based fee and <br />providing a subsidy. <br /> <br /> It was the consensus of Council to support providing a <br />subsidy for eligible households. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he thought some combination of <br />tax reduction may be best but was still inclined to take the <br />entire cost of solid waste out of the rate. Mr. Vandever <br />recommended folding the cost of providing a subsidy into the <br />user fee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Water stated that she felt there was merit in making <br />a distinction between the cost of collection and disposal <br />and other solid waste costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he felt people should pay <br />some amount for the large item pick up. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt there was community <br />benefit in providing the recycling program, leaf collection, <br />and large item pickup and therefore favored funding these <br /> <br /> <br />