|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With the city’s current franchise agreement with Pleasanton Garbage Service set to end in a few years, the Pleasanton City Council unanimously agreed Tuesday to give city staff six months to continue negotiating a three- to- five-year extension of the current agreement with the waste service provider.
During the next six months, staff will work out an amendment to the current contract that includes the multi-year extension, additional services, a process for decoupling transfer station services from the current solid waste services agreement, and a process and timeline for developing a current and future design plan for PGS’s transfer station, located at 3110 Busch Road. The amendment will later go before the council for a vote.
The design plan for the transfer station, which was one of the main focus points during Tuesday’s council meeting, will help address current compliance issues, capacity needs, operation impacts, transfer of ownership due to the sale of PGS or the property, and the fiscal impacts for developing a potential new transfer station, according to staff.
“There’s certainly compatibility issues that have been created with the latest changes that are happening in the neighborhood. But I would say that when we’re looking at investing in whether it’s the ratepayers, PGS through the ratepayers, or ultimately a public facility, there are opportunities and potential wins to be had by relocating the facility,” City Manager Gerry Beaudin said during the Nov. 18 council meeting.
PGS has served Pleasanton since 1969 and, according to staff, residents have been generally satisfied with the organization’s work in collecting trash, waste and recycling while also transferring materials from its transfer station for processing and disposal.
However, the city is assessing what the future of its waste management system could look like amid ongoing compliance issues with state-mandated regulatory requirements, infrastructure and capital needs, the contract expiration approaching in June 2029 as well as the fact that new development could soon come to the area surrounding the PGS facility on Busch Road.
Over the last few months, the city has been analyzing factors including transfer station costs, the feasibility of directly hauling waste and garbage to landfills, and the possibility of doing community drop off services. Residents and commercial stakeholders were also engaged by the city to determine current solid waste and recycling services provided by PGS — the majority of both groups were satisfied overall with PGS’s services.
Staff presented the stakeholder engagement outcomes and facility feasibility and cost analysis to the council. Some of the costs staff went over included a minimum of $10 million for retrofitting the current PGS transfer station facility; a $70 million minimum for refurbishing the facility and building a new one for long-term needs; and different costs associated with direct haul.
Even though most of the residents had a favorable view of PGS, 58% also support a competitive request for proposal process just to see what other options are available, according to Rob Hilton with HF&H Consultants.
Hilton highlighted the value of having the only transfer station in all of the Tri-Valley cities.
“Under the current situation, with the current depreciation costs and operating costs of the facility, it’s about $1.2 million cheaper to use the transfer station, consolidate loads and transfer them up to the landfill and compost facility,” Hilton said.
Much of the conversation also revolved around the possibility of the city owning a transfer station in the future and how constructing and maintaining such a facility would reflect on rates.
“Part of the issue here that we’re straining against is it’s a little bit of the tail wagging the dog,” Hilton added. “We’ve got 95% of the cost that the ratepayers pay that are associated with collection (and) this 5% associated with the facility, but people want the convenience of the in-town, publicly available facility. PGS is the only one that owns one.”
Everyone on the council agreed that, as outlined by staff, the community wants to maintain the transfer station and that the city should try to keep it online.
“If we have a good thing and we can keep it going, we should,” Councilmember Matt Gaidos said.
That remained true even after Hilton pointed out that the majority of people who want the transfer station to remain active haven’t really used the facility.
“I do think the transfer station is valuable to Pleasanton,” Mayor Jack Balch also added. “When you need it, you need it.”
Councilmember Julie Testa also introduced a friendly amendment to staff’s recommendation, which was approved, to include language that allows for a discussion of opportunities for alternative recycling options.
New sports bar and restaurant in Pleasanton aims to bring stadium experience to the Tri-ValleyJanuary 13, 2026 8:31 am
Scott Adams, 'Dilbert' creator and longtime Pleasanton resident, dies from cancerJanuary 13, 2026 9:54 am