Laserfiche WebLink
140 <br /> <br />stated that staff recommended a volume based user fee for <br />curbside refuse collection to cover increased disposal costs <br />and the expansion of the curbside recycling program and a <br />volume based user fee for commercial container customers <br />to cover their share of the increase in disposal costs. The <br />fee for curbside collection is proposed to be collected <br />through the sale of plastic bags (75 cents for a 30 gallon <br />bag), and for commercial collection on the~basis of 69 cents <br />per cubic yard. Ms. Ingels stated that it was proposed that <br />recycling be expanded city-wide and that this service be <br />contracted out to the private sector. Ms. Ingels noted that <br />newspapers are not proposed to be collected curbside for <br />recycling and commercial recycling is not included in,the <br />proposal. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter questioned whether some thought has been <br />given to how to deal with disposal of yard waste and Msl <br />Ingels replied that this had not been investigated to date. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever, Ms. Ingels <br />replied that disposal costs in the current fiscal year <br />amounted to $600,000. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever asked staff to provide information on the <br />percentage of commercial customers who are provided with six <br />times a week trash collection. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever noted concern that residential customers <br />would pay 100% of the new costs under the proposal and felt <br />that the only justification for the proposed fee system is <br />that it generates funds. Mr. Vandever stated that he felt <br />Council should look for efficiencies in the broader City <br />budget to fund the new costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he did not think $1.3 million in <br />efficiencies could be found in the City budget. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano stated that he felt data was important on <br />the cost inherent in the existing system since the pay by <br />the bag system is a controversial proposal. Mr. Toscano <br />requested information on the amount of waste reduction <br />achieved through recycling and the amount of illegal dumping <br />in other communities who have instituted recycling and user <br />fee systems. Mr. Toscano made the following comments: the <br />proposal did not contain a discussion of a material recycling <br />facility (MRF); he was not convinced about the long-term <br />benefits of privatizing recycling and would like to see <br />examples of how such firms would operate; recommended that <br />the efficiency of the City's collection system be <br />investigated; and requested information on the sale of <br />recyclables. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ingels noted that the MRF was being discussed on a <br />regional level. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards requested information on the reaction of <br />residents of low-income neighborhoods to user fees generated <br />through the sale of bags in those communities which have such <br />a system. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter requested information on the impact of <br />the proposal on the Housing Authority. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever requested that another option with a <br />different ratio for fees charged to residential versus <br />commercial customers be proposed by staff, which would <br />include the implications of such a proposal. <br /> <br />APPROPRIATION: $1,431 - DRUG SEIZURE ASSETS <br /> <br /> On motion by Mr. Toscano, seconded by Mr. Vandever, the <br />appropriation of $1,431 for drug seizure assets was offered <br /> <br /> <br />