1991-06-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

247 Ms. Waters stated that she felt it made sense to provide recycling service to all residences in the City. Ms. Mary Ingels, Assistant Director of Public Works, explained that no real policy has existed to determine who receives dumpster or curbside service, but rather the use has just developed over time. Ms. Waters stated that Council may want to consider developing a policy regarding dumpster versus curbside service. Ms. Ingels stated that she has met with the Blue Ridge Apartment Council and listed the two most common issues expressed: 1) concern about county residents dumping their trash in City dumpsters; and 2) the feeling that it is unfair to charge a fee for dumpster service when no other fees are charged for collection. Ms. Slaughter recommended that the possibility of converting all commercial trash pickup to dumpsters rather than curbside be explored and that consideration should be given to charging all commercial customers a fee in the meantime. Mr. Toscano noted that the City's primary goal is to reduce the waste stream and added that the City cannot be responsible for monitoring dumpsters. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Ms. Ingels stated that the methodology used for developing the proposed fee for-dumpster service was the same as had previously been presented, and the assumption was made that some businesses would be lost as customers when the fee was imposed. Ms. Slaughter requested that staff provide some data on what private trash collectors charge. Mr. Toscano stated that he favored volume based fees. Ms. Waters recommended that staff meet with the Apartment Council members again after CoUncil develops a proposal. Mrl Richard Jones of Management Services, and a member of the Apartment Council, stated that the main issues~of concern are the security of the dumpsters, fairness of the policy, and access to recycling. Ms. Waters stated that she would like.to-include'as many customers as possible in the recycling program. Ms. Slaughter stated that she would favor the fee as proposed based on volume times the frequency of collection. It was the consensus of Council to have staff take forward the fee proposal as recommended by staff for a series of small meetings with apartment and business representatives, with a public hearing to be held by Council on July t5th~ With regard to the request for proposals for the curbside recycling program, Mr. Toscano questioned whether differential bids for co.mingled~versus cUrbside sorting were in the RFP. Ms. Ingels stated that the RFPs are flexible, with the only direction being that the contractor is told that the customer will not have to sort the materials. Ms. Ingels added that a condition has been included in the RFP that if a material recovery facility (MRF) is developed then the recycled materials must be taken there by the contractor.