Laserfiche WebLink
continue a positive relationship with Pleasanton Garbage Services by trying to work to <br />maximum more efficiency and provide it with a greater ability to earn a higher rate of <br />return while continuing to control and reduce the City's costs. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan noted that in the past, the City did hire an outside consultant to <br />review efficiencies, which is clearly demonstrated by Pleasanton Garbage Services. The <br />City has a unique relationship with Pleasanton Garbage Services and the report <br />compliments Pleasanton Garbage Services on how it operates. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala emphasized again that rates are increasing across the board and people <br />are feeling the pinch. She believed it would benefit the City to look at ways to cut costs. <br />She asked what the difference would be in changing from a 90-gallon container to a 30- <br />gallon container. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said the current 90-gallon container service is $22.30 per month. If <br />someone were to transition to a 35-gallon container there would be a $.20 increase per <br />month. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky mentioned that the City of Dublin collects it garbage fees for basic <br />service in its property taxes, tie asked if there was any advantage in doing it this way <br />and could costs be reduced by not having a billing system? <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said that staff has reviewed this option for sewer services and so <br />far, the costs do not make sense. She cautioned Council in proceeding this way, as things <br />tend to disappear. <br /> <br />Mayor Pico opened the meeting for public comments. <br /> <br /> Mike Oliver, 760 Tunbridge Road, Danville, representing Pleasanton Garbage <br />Services, said that Pleasanton Garbage Services is proud of its relationship with the <br />residential, business and civic components of the Pleasanton community. He provided <br />comments and recommendations for Council's consideration concerning the current rate <br />proposal, which was also submitted to Council as a written communication: (1) Annual <br />Review of Company Financial Experience - the Company is concerned that some of the <br />reductions may create a significant unfunded liability for the City and the ratepayers in <br />future years. Accordingly, Pleasanton Garbage Services requests that Council direct the <br />Solid Waste Subcommittee to meet directly with the Company on an annual basis to <br />review the impact of current financial trends on any unfunded liability being created for <br />the taxpayers. This annual review will ensure that Council and Pleasanton Garbage <br />Services have, at a minimum, an opportunity to discuss and report on the financial <br />impacts of implementation of the modified rate increases. (2) The "Lag" Year Issue - the <br />City has historically required Pleasanton Garbage Services to use audited financial <br />figures as the basis for preparation of the Company's rate adjustment report. This <br />requirement has delayed the submittal by approximately nine months from the close of <br />the fiscal year and has caused the rate application to have a "lag year" for which there is <br />no previously approved rate adjustment. This results in rolling forward the uncollected <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 20 07/20/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />