CCMIN062000 - Laserfiche WebLink

with ~bod wastes and reprocessing. The dollars that are expended fbr each one of those percentages that go up over 50% grow almost exponentially. Some cities. like the City of San Francisco, don't have much grass. There is not enough ~een waste material to help tttem get to the higher numbers, so getting the 50% is much more difficult than a sub- urbanized area. The state is working througda those numbers, recognizing that different jurisdictions have difl~rent geographic and other factors that contribute to it. 75% is probably many fold more difficult and expensive to get to than 50%. Ms. Dennis said she had two points with regard to the 75% goal. The voters of Alameda County set that goal when they passed Measure D. Measure D imposed a $4 per ton fee to assist wlth the development of recycling and diversion source reduction programs that would be set up in Alameda County with the goal of attaining 75% diversion by 2010, We have a higher standard in Alameda than the rest of the state. The state mandate is 50%, and there is some credit given for good faith efforts for those jurisdictions who are having difficulties that the state can identify are unusual obstacles. The goal of 75% is funded by the residents of Alameda County who basically pay that $4 per ton surcharge at the landfill to fund the development of programs. In Alanmda County there have been a number of programs that have been set up also so that cities and special districts have places for things like construction debris. We are constantly developing new programs. Some of that money is returned to local jurisdictions also for things like our blue bag program and our green waste containera. The voters of Alameda County were thinking something different than the rest of the state was thinking in terms of our higher standard that we wish to set. What is interesting was San Francisco was on the news with a program that it has instituted for the collection of mixed recyclablcs that is very similar to the program lhat we have here in Pleasanton. Pleasanton did not do the standard thing when we stoned our recycling program. It was considered acceptable only to have residents separate out all of the different recyclables they had. But now everybody is switching over to what we do. We have been trendsetters by investing in this, There are a lot of good things in our commemial refuse, particularly with regard to paper opportunities, for diversion. Commercial refuse is still the number one thing that goes to the landfill. We have an opportunity to molly get above 50% as we introduce the commercial recycling program. It is exciting. All we really need is a concrete floor. Ms. Ayala asked what happens to the monies for the blue bag program and the green waste containers that come back m ~m city? Mr. Oliver said that PGS gets about $350,000 annually in Measnre D revenues and that money is used to purchase all of the green waste containers and the blue bags for the City of Pleasanton program. Measure D subsidizes the refuse program substantially. Ms Demtis said that wc also have opportunities to apply for grants for special projects that serve the region and we have opportunities for grants to support the use of recycled materials in our building programs. We have a lot of assistance that we get through that program that will really do us some good. Plem~anton City Council 36 06/20/00 Minutes