My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN090396
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN090396
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:56 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 11:11:04 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.
/
24
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
The first year of the program will give a better idea of the total weight being taken to the <br />land fill. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if a person could on occasion switch containers and use the 90 <br />gallon for greenwaste and the 64 gallon for household waste. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sherwood said that would be difficult. PGS would have to determine whether that <br />would work. There would have to be advance notice to PGS. He indicated there had been no <br />complaints from customers in the pilot program who felt the 64 gallon container was too small. <br />However, if a customer feels a larger size is needed, that could be requested. A notice will be <br />sent out in the next billing cycle. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if townhouse residents with landscape services will automatically be <br />given a greenwaste container even though they don't need it? <br /> <br /> Mr. Sherwood said a notice will be delivered in the billing and extra effort will be given <br />to make sure the service is only given to those who want it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated PGS is different than other garbage companies; it is smaller and <br />is a local company. There are opportunities to pursue different strategies for reducing the <br />generation of waste. She hopes people will change their habits over time with incentives. If <br />a customer had a small container, more trips to the recycling station would be made, especially <br />if the extra pickup were more expensive. The key is the rate charged for the extra pickup. She <br />wanted the smaller container to cost as little as $16.00, but make it revenue neutral by increasing <br />what is charged for the extra pickup to encourage people to make the choice because that is <br />really the service they need, not just because it is less expensive. She suggested charging $7.00 <br />for the extra pickup. She wants people to get credit for going to the recycling center and taking <br />their source separated refuse. Even for those people who retain the 90 gallon can, it is desirable <br />if they separate their recyclables before putting them in the larger can. She had hoped that <br />people would be able to call PGS to have it deliver the blue bags to the residence. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti felt that some people might order a smaller can and, rather than pay for <br />extra pickups, would put their refuse in someone else's larger can. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated PGS has a good customer service department and it might possible <br />to identify those residents who should not have the 35 gallon can service, based on their billing <br />history. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti pointed out that PGS has agreed to deliver the blue bags. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico indicated he had served on the Council committee to review the options for <br />refuse service and can sizes as well as attended one of the community hearings. He would love <br />to find a way to develop a recycling program that created a change in the community's habits <br />and to substantially increase the recycling of the community. The Committee inquired if this <br /> <br />09/03/96 -5 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.