June 24th, 97h ALL

unit, to each commercial establishment, to each industrial establishwent, -and to

each public. ‘or- institutional” ‘building;

2. *The garbage pick-up to he ‘Limited to no more than three standard garbage “tans
weighing no. more ‘than 75: pounds each; |
3.0 Commercial and industrial establishnents, apartment, and public or. institution-
es ‘buildings requiring collection service in excess of three cans once per week will
be required to make their oun arrangements; ” |
4. A garbage ‘charge of $24; 00 per year. to those benefiting fromthe service to be
instituted. It is suggested. that: an appropriate mill rate. reduction could-accom-
pany the institution of a separate charge. It is estimated that the-revenue fron.
this charge would be approximately $100,000.00 to $120,000.00 per year.
5. ~The garbage charge could be handled along with present water-and sewer bill-
ings. First charge to commence in 1975, - |
6. The Solid Waste Recycling Pilot Project-as originally conceived: be implemented
Septeaber 16th, 1974, Following the end of ‘the summer vacation period this would
allow for two weeks of. heavy publicity including the use ofthe schools. and students. -
7. An updated Garbage Disposal. By~law be drafted by the City Clerk's office (assi-
sted by the City Solicitor) following the Council’ s decision to. adopt; not adopt,
or amend the above and/or any other reconnendations,

Prior to. the que stion being called. on the foregoing resolution, a discussion
ensued, and: Alderman Ranger stated he: disagreed: ‘with recommendation No. 4 in the
City Engineer's report which would equate the sewer and. water user charges-with a
garbage pick-up charge, Alderman I Lalcing pointed. ‘out that the City is spending
$159, 000. GO on garbage pick-up now 3° however, he stated he would like to have an .
idea of how a separate. charge for this service. is” working. in other municipalities.
Alderman Thompson advised that the Committee is trying to bring: some equity to the
garbage disposal service and that. the request is not for more money or to suggest
that this be an additional levy. |

Moved by Alderman Traboulay:

Seconded by Alderman Mabbett:.
That’ the foregoing proposed resolution be amended by deleting item No. 4 in

its entirety, and by correcting the numbering sequence of the subsequent items

5, 6 and 7 to read 4, 5, and 6, respectively... _ Carried.
@ ° Mayor Campbelt and Aldermen ‘Kerylule and Thompson voted against the resoluticn.

Prior to passap of the foregoing anending resolution, Alderman Keryluk « sta-
ted his view that recommendation No. 4 is crucial to all the other reconnenda-
tions, and Alderman Thompson pointed out that all that is bed requested is to
identify that $24.00 of a person’ $ taxes. is. being used for "garbage collection -

and is not a request ro increase taxes: $24. 00 per year. -