considered pclitically more expedierit or more acceptable to
maintain an existing mill rate by renoving services from the
mill rate than to increase the mill and maintain existing
services. However the total cost to the taxpayer is the
same if not higher.

Goals

‘L) It is desirable that the standards of health and esthe-
tics of the community be protected by maintaining garbage
handling and dispossl standards and providing standardized
collection service.

2) That the cost of the service be as equitable as possible
and prevent future abuse and inequities.

3) In solving our present problens we should also prevent
the development of future problems. :

General
1) We concur with the proposed standard (3 cans per week)

2) Every taxpayer should be abliged to pay for this standard
as there are both direct and indirect benefits.

3) We also feel that where more garbage is generated than the
set standard, the taxpayer should be charged more for the
cost of girbage disposal. This cost is to be based on the
cost of handling the additional amount plus the cost of
administration. Where additional amounts are produced the
city could permit the individual to dispose of the same in
accordance with city standards at his own expense. {Also
where the city did not have the equipment or facilities the
service could be contracted out.)

4) Irrespective of the good intentions of the present coun-
cil we see a great dangér in that future councils “ill see
garbage collection as a revenue producing service. Present
proposals provide for this eventuality and inequity. (eg.
revenue from sewage is presently used to bolster tax revenue )

Recommendations

1) G:rbage collection cannot be dealt with as a separate
utility. It must therefore remain as a basic part of the
mill rate since every taxpayer benefits from municipal
gartage collection whether directly or indi: ectly. Every
taxpayer must be expected to snare the cost of the service.