Back in July, the city council approved a Prop 218 notice for a residential variable rate structure that would set differential rates based on three sizes of garbage carts.
The basis for this change, according to staff, was that “residential variable rates were common in the region, variable rates can be an effective tool in helping communities meet their increased waste diversion targets, and charging a flat rate for all cart sizes does not reflect the actual costs of solid waste services.”
Staff adds, “Variable solid waste rates are considered a best management practice as recommended by CalRecycle as an effective tool that local agencies can use to meet increased diversion goals. The proposed residential rate structure is based on the consultant analysis and NRC recommendation, and should assist the City meet its future waste diversion targets.”
Currently the city of Davis contracts with Davis Waste Removal (DWR) to provide for pickup of garbage, recycling, green waste and street sweepings from Davis residents. The city has the responsibility for administering the contract with DWR as well as designing and implementing recycling programs, managing the Solid Waste Fund, and meeting the City’s long term diversion rate.
The proposed rate increases would cover the increased costs of the DWR contract as well as increased Yolo County landfill fees. Staff projects both of these to average about 3 percent per year.
Writes staff, “The rate increases would enable the City to implement priority solid waste programs contained in the adopted Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) in order to meet the City’s future diversion rate target of 75% by 2020.”
The plan is part of a broader Integrated Waste Management Plan which was “compiled by staff with collaborative input from the Davis Natural Resources Commission (NRC), industry experts, and the community at large.” The goal is to reduce waste disposal to 1.9 pounds per person per day by the year of 2020 and “as closed to zero pounds per person per day as possibly by 2025.”
This is a goal of the Davis City Council from 2012-2014 as passed in 2011, and “is consistent with CalRecycle’s current statewide recycling target.”
“The City’s waste reduction targets are established in resolution 11-185. Expanding and improving the following programs are recommended to divert approximately 8,583 tons of waste per year from the landfill using the following primary criteria: reducing landfill disposal, converting landfill waste to the recycling/composting stream, and cost-effectiveness as defined by potential rate impacts.”
There are four programs that the city is looking at: organics program which would collect yard materials and food scraps for composting; multifamily recycling program which would increase outreach to maximize recycling in apartments; the commercial recycling program which would increase waste audits and outreach to business; and construction and demolition program which increases waste reduction and recycling for construction activities.
The Integrated Waste Management Plan has an aggressive schedule of actions to be implemented in the next two years. The first item implemented was the single-use carryout bag ordinance, which will have its second reading this week and will begin on October 1.
The city’s policy aims “to encourage customers (to) downsize cart sizes to focus on recycling, composting and reducing waste generation.”
But the policy is not without its critics. This week, Bob Dunning wrote, “Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, the Davis City Council, once again taking its marching orders from the Natural Resources Commission, decided that size does matter when it comes to how much each household is charged for garbage collection.”
He adds, “The council seems to think that by charging six dollars a month more for those using a 95-gallon can versus those use a 65-gallon can, Davisites will magically produce less garbage and one day soon we’ll be back on ‘Good Morning America’ where we belong.”
“It’s a great theory, but one that doesn’t hold much water. Or garbage,” he writes. “Numerous studies have shown that those who do bite at this small economic incentive and request a smaller garbage can actually produce nearly the same amount of garbage for pickup every week. They just do a better job of cramming it into the smaller container.”
However, there are options to avoid the concerns mentioned above. One possibility would be to charge by the weight of the trash, if people attempt to stuff a small amount of garbage into the 35-gallon cart in order to save money.
Moreover, the change is meant to work in concert with several of the other proposals. For example, “If City-wide food scrap collection is in place, most waste items would be acceptable for recycling or composting, reducing the amount of trash going into a garbage cart significantly.”
The city believes that through “social engineering,” by providing people with a smaller sized garbage cart, they will generate less waste, and “this idea of ‘right sizing’ a garbage cart is based on today’s world of extensive recycling programs, composting options and reducing waste.”
Furthermore, there is a basic fairness issue: “Should customers who generate less waste pay the same as customers who generate more?”
But despite the complaints from Mr. Dunning and some of his readers, who evidently believe “this will make the overflow trash problem worse, particularly at the student rentals in our neighborhoods and particularly at student rental turnover time,” the policy has generated few Prop 218 complaints.
Staff reports that, as of September 19, 2013, “the City Clerk had received 35 protests to the proposed solid waste service fee increase published in the residential and commercial Proposition 218 Notices. A final protest count will be available at the September 24th Council meeting.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]the policy has generated few Prop 218 complaints[/quote]
I think people know how futile that process is so why bother and waste the stamp. In fact I don’t remember even receiving a 218 notice, I might have but they’re so well disguised to look like other junk mail I might of just tossed it.
If we opt for a smaller can do we have to pay for the new one or will we be able to exchange for free?
“If we opt for a smaller can do we have to pay for the new one or will we be able to exchange for free?”
I think you would be able to exchange it.
How does it work now? When I moved here, there was already a waste can and recycle can?
When they went to the larger bins I can’t remember if they charged us or not David. Maybe someone else can chime in?
The thinking is that tiered charges will force residents into smaller cans which will force residents to reduce the amount of trash we generate? “Social engineering,” you say?
We’ve had the same can for many years, and almost never fill it more than half way.
I can count on one hand the times we’ve had a potential overflow problem and have had to hold something for a week.
The only times have involved a major garage cleanup and a couple fence blowdowns. And, those are the times we’ve carefully packed (or crammed, in Dunning’s words) our can.
One obvious impact of this proposed change will be the need for DWR to maintain a larger inventory of cans–and the associated costs, space, environmental costs of can production, etc.
How much excess inventory will be needed to initiate and maintain customers’ needs? Hard to tell until until we have a fee years’ experience. But, we know who’ll end up paying these additional costs.
Tiered charges for things incoming (power, water, cable tv) work, but I can’t imagine someone will go to the trouble and potential problems and cut their capacity in half in order to move from $31 to $28.
This proposal does have a familiar ring to it. The NRC is sitting around thinking, “what kind of new ban, fine or inconvenience can we get the city.council to impose on Davisites?” The commission forgets that Davis residents have an exceptional record of seeking out and undertaking green actions on a voluntary basis.
Maybe the NRC could spend a little time and brainpower to come up with effective voluntary programs instead of half-baked ways to force compliance.
Maybe they could consider an education and subsidy program to encourage home composting of garbage, for example.
And, for sure, the commission needs to get out of the social engineering business.
Justsaying, agree with everything you said especially:
[quote]The NRC is sitting around thinking, “what kind of new ban, fine or inconvenience can we get the city.council to impose on Davisites?[/quote]
and
[quote]the commission needs to get out of the social engineering business[/quote]
The NRC’s act is getting old, it would be great to throw them out with the garbage.
Another idea I’ve seen floated in some letters to the editor. Is that instead of charging per size of container charge per pick-up. In theory people would only put their cans out when they are full, wether that by every week or every month etc, and are only charged those weeks. I can quickly think of some logistical issue’s with this idea but I think it’s an interesting one.
B. Nice, I saw that too and I like the idea. It would save on tons of plastic as almost everyone could keep their current bins and the driver could have a checklist of which addresses he had to pick up on his route. Less stops, faster routes and a savings for Davisites.
To Growth Izzue and Just Saying – The NRC has been discussing ways to comply with the State’s new mandated solid waste diversion goals for over 2 years. This isn’t something we are sitting around and trying to think up ways as to how we can socially engineer society or poke conservatives with a stick to see how they squeal. It is simply a matter of figuring out ways to economically accomplish what is MANDATED by the State AND to catch up with what has been done in solid waste management in the Bay Area, Portland, Seattle, and much of the coastal towns in Southern California for years.
For instance, the idea of holding back the garbage can until it is full is a great idea and we carefully considered it and short-listed this as one of the eventual goals for us to accomplish. But, by State law, we can only do that once we get to dry landfill trash that has all putrescible waste removed. That is, no food scraps, baby diapers, or cat litter in the trash cans. So we are proposing containerizing green waste into which residents can also throw their food waste. Baby diapers and cat litter is prohibited from being mixed with other compostable materials, however, so we are working on a plan for collecting those materials separately in a cost effective manner. Portland is implementing a plan to put out separate buckets for those waste items to be picked up separately after which they will be taken to a special anaerobic digester. But I would like to go one step further and only pick up and charge for dry landfill trash when a cart is actually filled and put out. We’ll have to get scannable bar codes individualized for each container linked to a specific address, though, to pull that off. But these changes requires careful forethought and outreach and due process…very time consuming and a slow process.
Can I suggest that if you are really concerned about what we are doing in the NRC, why don’t you guys show up at NRC meetings when these items are being discussed or submit your written comments to us as to ways that things can be done better. By doing so, you will have much more influence and impact compared to if you otherwise wait until all the heavy lifting has been done and proposals finalized and then start howling about how we are social engineering and trying to take over people’s lives.
[quote]For instance, the idea of holding back the garbage can until it is full is a great idea and we carefully considered it and short-listed this as one of the eventual goals for us to accomplish. But, by State law, we can only do that once we get to dry landfill trash that has all putrescible waste removed. [/quote]
Thanks for clarifying this. And thanks for your work on the commission.
[quote]For instance, the idea of holding back the garbage can until it is full is a great idea and we carefully considered it and short-listed this as one of the eventual goals for us to accomplish. But, by State law, we can only do that once we get to dry landfill trash that has all putrescible waste removed. [/quote]
I don’t understand, what’s the difference if a can is half full and has putrescribe waste or completely full with some putrescribe waste?
[quote]This isn’t something we are sitting around and trying to think up ways as to how we can socially engineer society [/quote]
I didn’t say it, the article did:
[quote]The city believes that through “social engineering,” [/quote]
*putrescible*
[quote]I don’t understand, what’s the difference if a can is half full and has putrescribe waste or completely full with some putrescribe waste?[/quote]
My guess is that is has to due with the odor this type of waste would generate after being in a trash can for extended periods of time? Is dog waste also in this category?