Laserfiche WebLink
297 <br /> <br />that the remaining $31,000 in the contingency fund would be <br />"returned to the General Fund at year's end if unused. <br /> <br /> Directing her comments to the Superintendent of Schools, <br />Ms. Waters stated that she assumed that the renovation of <br />Johnson School was a high enough priority with the School <br />Board to move it up on the priority list and reduce the <br />school's flexibility to do other projects. <br /> <br /> Dr. Joseph McGeehan, Superintendent of Schools, replied <br />that the School Board felt it was important to improve the <br />physical environment at Johnson, adding that it was the only <br />school remaining which needed major renovation. <br /> <br /> The $190,000 appropriation for architectural fees for <br />Johnson School renovations which was offered at the September <br />18th meeting was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Rev. <br />Edwards, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Toscano, Mr. Vandever, Ms. <br />Waters. Noes: None. <br /> <br /> BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of <br />Charlottesville, Virginia that the sum of $190,000 is hereby <br />appropriated from Capital Fund account codes 26-181-122010 <br />($73,767 - Clark School Renovation) and 26-181-122021 ($4,017 <br />- Venable School Renovation) and $112,216 from account code <br />26-010-122050 (Project Contingencies) to account code <br />26-181-122022 in the Capital Fund, to be expended on fees for <br />architectural services associated with the design, bid and <br />construction phases of the Johnson School renovation project. <br /> <br />WORK SESSION: SOLID WASTE FEES <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that he would like Council to agree <br />on the proposed schedule for work sessions and public <br />hearings on the solid waste fee issue and to develop one or <br />two options to be considered at the public hearing for <br />financing the solid waste program beginning July 1, 1992, <br />either through fees, property taxes, or a combination, and <br />then propose a method for collection of such fees or taxes. <br />Mr. Hendrix stated that the entire solid waste program, <br />including recycling, currently costs $3,231,872, or <br />approximately $165 per household and ~1 million for dumpster <br />service. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he would like to propose for <br />consideration the option of reducing the tax rate by 11 <br />cents, which is the current amount in the tax rate for solid <br />waste, and implementing a flat monthly fee of approximately <br />$13.75 per household. Mr. Vandever stated that he would <br />prefer to avoid the bag/sticker issue at this time as he felt <br />it would be too confusing, but would like to keep the option <br />open of going to such a system in the future. Mr. Vandever <br />continued that such a proposal would allow time to get the <br />recycling program into place and to provide sufficient public <br />education. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano agreed that the public was confused by the <br />bag proposal, but stated that he felt such volume based <br />system would be best in the long run as it would provide an <br />incentive to recycle. Mr. Toscano stated that he did not <br />favor totally backing the cost of solid waste out of the tax <br />rate because he felt the financial burden would be shifted to <br />renters and low income residents. Mr. Toscano stated that he <br />woUld favor that an intermediary position be brought forward <br />for the public's consideration, in addition to Mr. Vandever's <br />proposal, such as reducing the tax rate by approximately 5 <br />cents and funding the remainder of the program with a volume <br />based fee. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters expressed concern with shifting the entire <br />cost of the solid waste program into fees as she felt <br />property taxes were more of a progressive tax than a flat <br />fee, adding that she was inclined to build in an incentive to <br /> <br /> <br />