CCMIN040571 - Laserfiche WebLink

395 Garbage Serv~se including rates, to their existing contract with the City of Livermore. As indicated in a letter from ~4r. William Gale, representing William Ralph Properties, dated April 1, 1971, the cur- rent disposal rate is $3.00 per ton. In addition, this letter ex- plains other matters pertinent to the use of the subject site for disposal purposes by the Pleasanton Garbage Service. Mr. Fales indicated that the above proposal is reasonable in terms of the additional estimated costs involved and the fact that the proposal provides for the continued use of a convenient location for the dis- posal of refuse by individual homeowners. Councilman Spiliotopoulos reported that he had received a letter today from Mr..Burke Critchfield, attorney representing the owners of a l~o- posed dump site on Croak Road, which offered a rate of $2.25 per ton. He further Stated that $2.25 per ton represnets a considerable savings to the citizens. Discussion ensued regarding the Pleasanton Garbage Service contracting with William Ralph Properties on Vasco Road, Livermore. Mr. Fales stated that he was of the opinion that one of the strong points of the proposal involves the fact that it will utilize an exist- ing dump site and, therefore, from the City's point of view, eliminate the necessity for proliferation of sanitary land fill sites in the valley. He also felt that since sanitary land fill is the only feas- ible method of solid waste disposal at present, consolidation and use of existing sites, where possible, is an advisable couTee of action , pending the development of new waste disposal technology and, the utilization of this technology by new and ~orkable sub-regional or regional governmental forms or arrangements. Mr. Joseph Schwab, attorney for the Pleasanton Garbage Service said the recommendation from the Alameda County Health Department is to utilize an existing dump as there is no need for a ne~ dump site in the Valley. Mr. Schwab added tllat the proposal of Mr. Critchfield as quoted by Councilman Spiliotopoulos, was unrealistic. Mr. Critchfield stated that he had been assured by the City Manager that he would be notified in time to examine a proposal for a dis- posal site and submit his client's proposal. Hr. Critchfield stated that he did not receive the material until last Friday afternoon. This, he stated was the reason for the delay in presenting his pro- posal. Mr. Critchfield gave a lenity disertation on the advantages of contracting with his client, as soon as their permit is issued. He urged the City Council to extend t/~e franchise agreement but stated that he felt that the proposal should not include construction of a transfer station because it would not be necessary should Pleasanton Garbage Service contract with his client, when their site is approved. Mr. Fales stated that he had received a letter, dated January 7, 1971, from Mr. Critchfield, which proposed a $3.20 per ton disposal rate. Mr. Fales stated that he outlined the staff's feeling to Mr. Critch- field on Harch 17, 1971 and Mr. Critchfield indicated at that time that he thought that the existing arrangement the City had, was a good one. Mr. Fales stated that on the basis of these facts, he felt that it was ~.~r. Critchfield's responsibility to submit a pro- posal and that the City doing business at this point 88d time, with him is in his opinion, out of order. Considerable. discussion ensued regarding various aspects of solid waste disposal arrangements. Mayo=--Reid read the following extract from the City Manager's report which provided some language pertaining to future technolog~al and governmental organization advances which could be inserted in the 9. 4-5-71