Laserfiche WebLink
1 communities, and the third only handled recyclable materials and no <br />'. other forms of garbage. <br />3 Jim Cobourn, 3429 Coolidge Street, indicated he agreed with Mr. <br />4 Wiehoff's complaints about the quality of service since Waste <br />5 Management took over for Walters and said that was why he had also <br />6 switched haulers. The resident said his family has always been in <br />7 favor of recycling and tried to recycle all the materials they could. <br />8 However, he said he also wanted the option of selecting his own hauler <br />9 and changing any time he didn't like either the service or the charges. <br />10 LeRoy Genaw, 3404 Roosevelt Street, indicated a conflict with another <br />11 commitment had kept him from attending the public hearing on recycling. <br />12 He read aloud from the list of questions and concerns about the proposed <br />13 program, which he said bothered him, including whether: <br />14 *it might not be rather "labor intensive" for Waste Management rather <br />15 than the residents to separate the recyclables after they're picked <br />16 up and whether that wasn't just something the ad hoc committee had <br />17 added to obtain the public's acceptance and participation; <br />18 *Waste Management customers would continue to deal directly with the <br />19 garbage hauler or whether the City would no w be handling the billing <br />20 and charging the residents for that service; <br />21 the recycling service would cause the $34.50 per quarter the residents <br />?2 now pay to go up or down. <br />.&3 Councilmember Enrooth reiterated that the City expected all hauling <br />24 charges to go up by $6.00 to $8.00 a month as soon as the County <br />25 incinerator is put into operation, which the Councilmember said he <br />26 understood was now scheduled for July, 1989. <br />27 Stephen Johnson, 3204 Croft Drive, said he hoped the residents who <br />28 don't generate a lot of recyclable materials would have the option of <br />29 storing 60 gallon (rather than 90 gallon) containers in their garages, <br />30 many of which are already overcrowded. Councilmember Enrooth told him <br />31 that was just the sort of input the City was looking for during the 90 <br />32 day evaluation period. He said 60 gallon containers had been one of <br />33 the options the study group had left open for further consideration. <br />34 Mr. McClanahan, who had served as the Task Force Chair, told the <br />35 residents to ad hoc committee's intent had been to find a recycling <br />36 program for St. Anthony which would be the most effective; give the City <br />37 some return; and would at the same time meet the criteria established <br />38 by the County. He said they knew they couldn't please every resident, <br />39 but perceived the City's contract with Waste Management, the only hauler <br />40 who appeared to meet that criteria, could be renegotiated to correct any <br />41 problems the next time around. <br />42 When Mr. Wiehoff asked the Task Force Chair whether they had researched <br />^3 the number of customers who had remained with Waste Management after <br />15 <br />