Trash funding finally approved

Rockville to implement twice-weekly garbage pickup in five phases

The same majority approved a related bonding ordinance allowing the city to borrow approximately $3.4 million needed for the program. Of that, the $1.8 million will be spent in fiscal year 2008 and $1.6 million in fiscal year 2009.

Mayor Larry Giammo opposed both votes, arguing in favor of a cheaper, more environmentally friendly shift to weekly refuse collection.

‘‘I’m not inclined to appropriate funds for a system that will be operating at a higher level of service than what people are going to need or want to pay for,” he said, referring to the weekly pilot program that received overwhelming user support in a city survey.

Councilwoman Susan R. Hoffmann, who supports either weekly or an option between weekly and twice-weekly service, voted for the funding ‘‘in an effort to move the process forward.”

Council members Robert E. Dorsey, Phyllis R. Marcuccio and Anne M. Robbins voted July 2 to keep twice-weekly refuse collection as part of a new semi-automated collection system.

But the three delayed funding their policy for weeks, asking for more numbers from staff on the costs and rates if they reversed course and went with optional twice- or once-weekly service.

It was Marcuccio who called for resolution last week, saying optional collection frequency would be too complicated to implement.

The new refuse and recycling program will do away with side-yard and back-yard service and implement semi-automated curbside trash pickups.

The new collection system will be implemented in five phases.

Originally scheduled to begin next April, the citywide conversion was expected to be completed around the start of fiscal year 2010.

But the funding delay might slow the timetable by a few weeks, City Manager Scott Ullery said.

Refuse and recyclingcommission

Tensions between Giammo and Robbins resurfaced again during discussion of a motion to create a standing refuse and recycling commission that would work on a plan for refuse collection.

At one point, Robbins interrupted Giammo as he speculated that the seven-member body might delay a final council decision or shift the issue to another municipal body.

Not the first such interruption in the meeting, her comment was not audible from the audience.

Giammo’s response was clear.

‘‘Council member, I would really appreciate it if I could finish uninterrupted,” he said to Robbins. ‘‘Will I be allowed to do that?”

‘‘I’m sure you will,” Robbins said. ‘‘You always do you have your say. You always do.”

Giammo continued.

‘‘Let me begin my last point because I was so rudely interrupted by council member Robbins,” he said. ‘‘If the motive here is to put off a final decision about refuse pickup frequency or other issues related to refuse or shifting those decisions to another body at some point in the future, I would characterize that as ineffective governance.”

Robbins introduced the ordinance creating the commission, but a motion to waive the layover period and publication requirements that are needed before a vote can be taken failed to gain the four votes required.

The item was scheduled for introduction, but no notice had been given that the vote would occur at Monday’s meeting.

Giammo and Hoffmann voted against the waiver, so it was tabled until after the council’s August recess. A supermajority was needed to pass the waiver.

Campaign issue

After the meeting, Marcuccio expressed satisfaction about retaining twice-weekly garbage collection.

‘‘We have done the right thing,” she said. ‘‘It is the best thing for the city.”

But challengers seeking council and mayoral seats have already made what they describe as an indecisive council a key campaign message.

‘‘Trash pick up — deciding whether it should be once or twice per week — is not complicated,” council candidate Piotr Gajewski said during the Citizens’ Forum portion of Monday’s meeting.

If members of the council are confused by how to administer garbage collection, ‘‘I urge you to consider stepping aside,” he added.

Gajewski was not alone, as other candidates stood before the incumbents and voiced frustration with the council.

The refuse vote came too late, allowing opponents to rally against incumbents, Hoffmann, a mayoral candidate, said after the meeting.

The issue ‘‘doesn’t go away, just because they finally voted in the most expensive, least efficient, most polluting system,” Hoffmann said. ‘‘It’s a bad decision, so why would the issue go away.”