13 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Page 4 Ms.Kaufman October 21,2011 6. The requirement that Pleasanton Garbage provide a Compliance Plan for Authority approval is unnecessary, bureaucratic, open ended,and again, removes Pleasanton from the process of determining the means for meeting recycling goals. In general,we disagree with the entire Compliance Plan as outlined in Section 7(b) and (c). As mentioned it is open ended including language such as "additional information required by the Authority," inappropriate in that it requires our franchise hauler to seek Authority approval on expenditures collected through its operations (Section 7(c)(10)); and that it significantly extends the Authority's control over Pleasanton Garbage operations. Again, the City is not afforded any authority concerning the appropriateness of the Compliance Plan. We also note that Measure D specifically defers to individual cities to put forward their own individual recycling plans. Finally, note that if the Authority determines that the Compliance Plan is insufficient,the franchise hauler is subject to a misdemeanor violation. If the Authority determines that a compliance plan is necessary, we request consideration that it be informational and not subject to Authority approval. The draft ordinance has been changed to delete the requirement that revenues collected at the transfer station via a surcharge be spent in any specific way. The compliance plan only adds some additional covered materials to the existing compliance plan that the Pleasanton Transfer Station already has in place for the Plant debris Landfill Ban. 7. The ordinance's reporting requirements are excessive and unnecessary. Examples of this concern are evidenced in Section 5(c) requiring information to be distributed to tenants quarterly; Section 7(f) requiring annual reporting and 8(b) requiring a submittal of a list of all businesses, and multi-family residences, including phone numbers, addresses, service levels, and container types. We request removal of these sections. The draft ordinance has been revised to reduce the reporting requirements for MF owners/managers and to allow for reduced information to be provided by the franchised hauler if they choose to play a role in outreach and identification of non-compliant businesses/MF buildings. Section 9 (c) allowing unannounced and unauthorized inspection on private property is inappropriate. The revised draft ordinance states that inspections will only be performed when in accordance with applicable law. That is, an unannounced inspection might never occur, but if it did, it would only happen when legal and appropriate. It is not appropriate for the Authority to be the enforcement agency for collection services in Pleasanton. We request removal of this section.