Laserfiche WebLink
187 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr supported staff recommendation. She commented that <br />if the two can choices were not to be made, then at that point the <br />additional $85,702 could be returned. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Mohr, and seconded by Mayor Mercer, to <br />approve a Measure D Refund disbursement of $188,000 to fund a <br />credit to all City Pleasanton Garbage Service customers equal to <br />approximately four months of the recycling component and reserve <br />approximately $85,702 of the Measure D Refund to offset the cost of <br />future programs designed to promote recycling as Council should <br />decide. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed that if the City wants to subsidize a <br />smaller can rate then it should come out of the general fund and <br />asked how the fees collected at the transfer station would be <br />refunded. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian explained that the refund is based on what the <br />customer's monthly fee is because the monthly recycling charge is <br />a percentage of their bill. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush explained that the money that was paid directly at <br />the transfer site was handled in a separate manner pursuant to the <br />judgment. That money has been set aside pending the decision on <br />appeal. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Mr. Tarver, and seconded by <br />Mr. Butler, to adopt Resolution 91-219, refunding the full amount <br />of $273,702 to City Pleasanton Garbage Service customers, equally <br />applied to all users (Residential and Commercial). <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Mohr, Scribner, Tarver and Mayor <br /> Mercer <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Item 12d <br />Report on Economic Development Committee Recommendation to <br />Eliminate the Design Review Board (SR92:477) <br /> <br /> Peter Shutts, Architect, member of Design Review Board, <br />commended staff and the Committee for a job well done. He felt <br />that their intentions are well founded. He believed that staff <br />provides a template for design; it does not guarantee good design <br />nor does it help correct bad design. Design professionals are <br />capable in recognizing good and bad design. The quality of design <br />is much more difficult to identify with guidelines. Mr. Schutz <br />believed that the Design Review Board has added credibility and <br />consistency to staff recommendations. It has also been an <br />important form of validation of staff's recommendations. He will <br /> <br />11/17/92 13 <br /> <br /> <br />