My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN010891
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
CCMIN010891
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:13 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:10:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
9 <br /> <br /> Mr. Inderbitzen replied that the company would be happy to <br />meet with any group to do anything within reason to develop a <br />program that would meet the objectives of the community in a way <br />that would be consistent with AB 939. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler asked Mr. Inderbitzen if the citizens have been <br />receiving the recycling effort they had been billed at $1.17 a <br />month. <br /> <br /> Mr. Inderbitzen replied that although the conveyor belt has <br />not been installed at this time, Pleasanton Garbage Service has <br />been picking through the garbage in an attempt to recover materials <br />for recycling. He pointed out that the resolution adopted by <br />Council set up a reserve for $1.17 such that the surcharge <br />collected would be used to offset costs through the process. He <br />added that the fuhds would be audited regularly and reviewed by the <br />City Manager and City staff. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if the picking station has been fully <br />evaluated in view of the curbside recycling mandate adopted by the <br />County in November. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta replied that she has talked with County staff and <br />has suggested that the system of recycling materials at a picking <br />station is similar to the curbside recycling program. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that he did not feel comfortable about <br />making a decision on the incentive program when questions are still <br />being raised on the recycling program. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta stated that Mr. Moss' concerns refer to commercial <br />recycling and what is paid out rather than to the incentive program <br />specifically. She mentioned that the City's goal is to get the <br />best program for the community and does not favor or hamper either <br />of the parties. The program will be monitored quarterly and will <br />be evaluated annually for readjustment, if warranted. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler commented that the important thing to consider is <br />whether or not an incentive to recycle can be established. He <br />indicated that he was in favor of putting the system into effect <br />and monitoring it during the year. He mentioned that it would be <br />good to allow other recyclers to get involved with the credit; <br />however, the capital expense of the franchiser would be impacted by <br />the recycling stream. He added that no resident is mandated to <br />take his materials for recycling to any specific recycling center. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that the recycling program and the incentive <br />program for recycling is a step in the right direction. He <br />indicated that he would like to see the program expanded to include <br /> <br /> - 9 - <br /> 1-8-91 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.