|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Pleasanton residents will soon see an uptick in their monthly garbage and recycling pickup fees following the City Council’s approval of an annual rate adjustment last week.
The adjustment, according to city staff, is associated with the indexed-based rate adjustment, which is an annual process in the city’s franchise agreement with Pleasanton Garbage Service.
“Per the franchise agreement between the city and Pleasanton Garbage Service, garbage rates are to be set by the City Council and become effective on July 1 of each year of the contract,” Becky Hopkins, assistant to the city manager, explained to the council at the June 20 meeting. “The franchise agreement stipulates an indexed-base rate adjustment methodology and a cost-based rate adjustment methodology.”
She explained that the city is using an index-base rate adjustment for the upcoming rate six period, which begins this July 1, that will include a 7.3% increase.
For residents, that translates to residents who pay for the 35-gallon service having to pay $2.15 more a month — roughly $25 more for the year. For residents paying for the 96-gallon carts, they will be paying $3.74 more a month, or just under $45 a year.
For commercial businesses using the 96-gallon carts, they will also see a $3.74 monthly increase.
“We recognize that this (consumer price index) adjustment that we’re discussing tonight is a little higher than usual, the usual annual adjustments which generally range from 3%-6%,” said Gordon Galvin from PGS. “However, we are in extraordinary times, with inflation, emerging from the pandemic supply chain challenges and enhanced regulatory requirements.”
Galvin said that while PGS has successfully navigated through those challenges, it was imperative that the city approve the rate adjustments in order to keep up with the cost of doing business and providing quality services.
“Over the past 12 months, we have dealt with higher fuel and labor costs, higher cost of goods needed to operate our business,” he said.
The rate adjustment item, which passed with a 3-1 vote with Vice Mayor Jack Balch dissenting and Councilmember Jeff Nibert absent, also coupled with a recommendation regarding the migration account liability account that is currently being held by PGS.
“What we’re recommending is that staff adopt a resolution to direct those funds in that reserve account, to be remitted back to the city in full no later than Sept. 20, 2024,” Hopkins said. “What we’re saying is, during this rate period six, they would continue to accrue revenue in that liability account and then once the city received that funding, that would be put in this special PGS reserve that we have set aside for waste and recycling.”
She said that money could eventually be used for a potential traffic mitigation study related to the garbage trucks, rate smoothing for garbage rates and any landfill maintenance issues.
However, Mayor Karla Brown clarified with staff that the money could not be used for any other funds, such as for paying police — which has been a hot topic in the city since the Pleasanton Police Officers Association declared an impasse in contract talks with the city.
“(It is) the council’s money to direct how it’s to be used and it is ratepayer revenue and so that is why staff is recommending that the city collect those funds and put it in the special revenue fund that can only be used for what the City Council has designated that special revenue fund for, which is waste and recycling specific rate that the ratepayers will benefit from,” Hopkins said.
Balch, however, had some issues with the 7.3% rate adjustment — he had previously suggested lowering it to 6.65% and finding some way to keep the reserve account leveled so that the city wouldn’t have to use reserve funds to pay for ongoing costs that would come from Senate Bill 1383.
SB 1383, according to the bill’s text, “requires organic waste facilities and operations to measure and report organic waste material activity.”
“If we’re smoothing in rate year six, seven or beyond once they remit the money … My challenge is SB 1383 is an ongoing cost,” Balch said. “We just had an entire budget conversation about not using reserves to fund ongoing costs.”
“I thought that the cameras and painting the commercial containers were the one-time costs in SB 1383,” he added. “So that’s kind of where my challenge is, those will be built in I think a little bit in year seven, definitely be incurred in year eight and beyond … so it has to go into the rate, right? It has to go into the rate because those are ongoing operations.”
But the rest of the dais agreed that the 7.3% increase was not too much, especially after Dave Hilton, project manager with HF&H Consultants — which was the firm that worked with the city on these cost adjustments — told the council about how low Pleasanton’s rates were compared to other cities.
“The 30- to 35-gallon bundled rate, which most Pleasanton residents enjoy, is much lower than any other jurisdictions in the Tri-Valley,” Hilton said. “Probably in the state, that is one of the lowest rates seen for that rate.”
“Even with the increases proposed tonight at potentially 7.3%, you would still be on the low end of that spectrum,” he added.
In other business
* The council waived the first reading of an ordinance which, if formally adopted at a later council meeting, would allow residents to use their e-bikes on city trails and pathways.
Currently, the city of Pleasanton’s municipal code prohibits motorized bicycles in park and recreation facilities — which include the city’s trails.
According to deputy city attorney Wesley Cheung, the proposed ordinance is coming to the dais after Assembly Bill 1909, which removes the prohibition on e-bikes on trails and pathways and allows local jurisdictions to adopt their own e-bike regulations, was approved in 2022.
“After AB 1909 goes into effect in January 2024, it essentially removes the blanket prohibition of class three e bikes and thereby allowing local ordinances or local jurisdictions to regulate class city bikes through an action of an ordinance,” Cheung said.
Because of this, staff presented their recommendation to allow all classes of e-bikes on city bike paths, bike lanes and in public parks, but with the added speed limitation of 15 mph or slower if conditions require a slower speed for the safe operation of the e-bike
Originally part of the consent calendar, the item was pulled by Brown, who was also the lone dissenter in the 3-1 vote to endorse the first reading and allow the ordinance to come back at a later date for a second reading and final adoption.
Brown said her main challenge was that she was worried that the e-bikes could pose a safety problem and could pose issues with pedestrians not being able to monitor e-bike riders who might be going over the speed limit.
“I happen to know I walk about 3-1/2 miles an hour and if I have a 15 mile an hour bicycle going past me at five times, virtually five times my pace, how do I monitor how fast that is?” Brown said. “I mean, it’s difficult at best.”
But Cheung stressed that while there is that risk — and that there will be signage along with efforts to educate the public on e-bike safety — allowing e-bikes on city trails is important for residents who don’t have the capacity to push up steep hills but still want to use those public amenities.
“The reason why staff is making that recommendation is mainly to continue to provide access to those who want to continue to access those dirt trails that may not have the physical ability to do so,” he said. “The e-bike does provide that assistance that allows … an older individual to be able to continue to access those trails.”
Pleasanton school board set to vote on canceling certain employee layoff noticesApril 16, 2026 7:42 am
I agree with Karla Brown (for once). I ride my human-powered bicycle almost daily on city trails, such as Marilyn Kane. People on e-bikes (who are mostly younger people) zip along at high speeds that are a safety hazard to pedestrians and bicyclists. In my experience, they don’t call out before passing (which is also a problem for some bicyclists) you just hear the obnoxious humming of the e-bike before it hits you. E-bikes should be limited to bike lanes on the street.
I do understand the issue about disabled people or seniors that cannot access the trails without this type of assistance and I think an accommodation to them for some sort of e-bike or another mode of transportation should be evaluated. The seniors (and I’m one of them!) that I’ve seen on e-bikes drive slowly and are respectful to others on the trails.
Allowing e-bikes that travel at high rates of speed on the trails is an accident waiting to happen. They won’t pay attention to speed limit signs.
If you think sharing trails and parks with bikes is dangerous, wait until an e-bike passes you at 30 mph. The to be set 15 mph speed limit on e-bikes in parks and trails will only help in determining damages after you get run over.