Laserfiche WebLink
107 <br /> <br />container service provided to over 500 businesses, including <br />some apartment buildings, with frequency of collection <br />ranging from one to six times weekly~ and 4) pilot curbside <br />recycling program. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell presented the following options for <br />Council's consideration: 1) partial or full cost funding <br />through user fees; 2) expanding the curbside recycling <br />program; 3) commercial garbage collection service; <br />4) increased disposal costs and landfill tipping fees; and <br />5) the possibility of going to once a week residential <br />garbage collection. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever, Mr. <br />O'Connell explained that costs at the landfill are increasing <br />due to State mandates requiring double liners, covering of <br />each cell, monitoring requirements, and capture and treatment <br />of runoff water. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he felt the staff's memorandum <br />restricted options to either raising more money and/or <br />providing less service and he was not willing at this time to <br />accept these as the only alternatives. Mr. Vandever stated <br />that he would like to see options for privatization or <br />reorganizing how things are done. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mueller stated that putting the recycling portion of <br />collection out to bid was an option. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix noted that privatizing would not eliminate <br />the funding issues.' ~ <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters questioned whether information on privatizing <br />could be provided in time for the budget. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated~that she felt the Rivanna Solid <br />Waste Authority should move ahead on the material recovery <br />facility (MRF), adding that it may be necessary in the long <br />run to subsidize the MRF. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mueller stated that the ideal funding model creates <br />an economic incentive to recycle. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he felt it would encourage <br />citizens to recycle if they knew the benefits. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter~recommended that businesses~and apartment <br />owners be contacted to solicitltheir suggestions regarding <br />recycling. <br /> <br /> Ms.-Waters recommended finding out what .services people <br />value the most. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he felt recycling had to be <br />looked at as an integral part of the whole system and would <br />not want to privatize only the recycling portion because the <br />City could lose control over the incentive issue. Mr. <br />Toscano added that he felt equity needed to be introduced in <br />how the City charges for collection and differences in <br />residential versus businesses or other large creators.of <br />waste. <br /> <br /> Responding to questions about the-cost of disposal~and <br />collection, Ms. Mary Ingels, Assistant Director of Public <br />Works, stated that residential collection costs $80 per year <br />per household, with disposal costing $309,000. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell noted that disposal and~collection cOsts <br />amount to $0.12 on the tax,rate this year and is anticipated <br />to amount to ~0.22 on the tax rate next year. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mueller stated that Charlottesville is the only <br /> <br /> <br />