CCMIN090396 - Laserfiche WebLink

people should pay their fair share. She agreed there should be a choice of the size of garbage container. She related the garbage service in Glendale, Arizona. Janice Johnson, 359 Christina Court, indicated she currently has a 30 gallon can. She does not mind switching to the 35 gallon can, although she does not need it because of her recycling practices. She felt the rates should be charged the same per gallon no matter what size container is used. She has a large yard and needs a 90 gallon can for greenwaste. She hoped residents will be allowed to choose the size necessary for greenwaste. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was dosed. Mr. Tarver clarified his previous comments. The issue is what kind of service is given to customers for their refuse. That service is linked to the cans available. If a customer chooses not to use a 90 gallon can, then the 90 gallon can could be available to residents who want a 90 gallon greenwaste can. The concept is to keep the cost down by only buying the service you need and not providing a 64 gallon can for everyone, when some may not want it. Again, it is a choice of service and rates that reflect the amount of refuse generated. It is true the cost of pick up is the same no matter what size can, but the refuse must still be disposed and those with larger cans are only paying $2.00 more a month for generating 60 gallons of garbage more than those with 30 gallon cans. That did not make sense to him. He also felt there should be an interim sized can used. The bottom line is trying to reduce the amount of waste generated. Giving people a 90 gallon can does not encourage recycling. Ms. Mohr asked what portion of the refuse rate reflects the landfill cost. Mr. Sherwood indicated a detailed cost analysis has not been done. The portion that is directly related to disposal is approximately 10%. The bulk of the rates charged reflect the cost of collection. A detailed analysis will be done which will provide data to support a cost differential for the various sizes. The reason there is only a $2.00 difference now is to ease into the service and not incur implementation difficulties. Council can later adjust the differential. Ms. Mohr was disappointed with the small difference in cost from the smaller to larger cans, although, after going through the hearings, she understands how the rates were set. Will a more accurate rate be set in 19987 Mr. Sherwood believed the necessary analysis could be done by then. Ms. Michelotti asked how adjustments are made for those who only need a small can because of owning a trash compactor. They have less volume, but more weight. Mr. Sherwood said there is currently no way to distinguish between customers who generate 15 or 20 gallons of refuse, whether loose or compacted. This does not necessarily reduce the costs that PGS incurs. It is taking the same amount of refuse to the transfer station. 09/03/96 -4-