Laserfiche WebLink
1 communities, and the third only handled recyclable materials and no <br /> 0-3 2 other forms of garbage. <br /> 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 not 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 /> 22 now pay to go up or down. <br /> WCouncilmember 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 his 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 /> 43 the number of customers who had remained with Waste Management after <br /> • 15 <br />