by Michelle Millet
Unless something radically changes it appears the City of Davis will move forward with its plan to move from a loose-in-the street yard waste collection program to an organic containerized collection program. Tuesday’s council discussion regarding this issue was not whether this change should happen, but instead focused on the best way to make it happen.
These are a summary of the options presented to council by staff:
Option 1: Carts only, no loose street pick-up: With this option, loose-in-the-street pick-up of yard materials would end once the 95 gallon organics carts would be distributed. This is the most cost effective method since DWR would need only one set of crews and equipment.
Option 2: Carts plus seasonal street pickup: During leaf-drop season, customers may place yard materials only (no food scraps or other organics) loose-in-the-street for pick-up by DWR during a two-month period from October 15 through December 15, annually. This is a more costly alternative as DWR would need to keep two sets of equipment in repair for running two different collection systems.
Option 3: Carts plus on-call pick-up: Customers can request one free special pick-up of yard materials per year. Additional pick-ups would be charged a fee. Pick-ups would have to be scheduled in advance. DWR has already notified the City that having two separate collection systems, equipment and crews running simultaneously could be extremely cost prohibitive.
Option 4: Carts plus one free drop-off per year: Customers receive one yearly “credit” to drop off one load of extra yard materials at the city’s yard at 1818 5th Street. Collected materials would either be placed in a DWR drop-box for composting, or run through a shredder.
Option 5: Carts plus free seasonal drop-off at DWR: During leaf-drop season, October 15 through December 15 annually, customers can bring unlimited quantities of yard materials to the city’s yard at 1818 5th Street. Collected materials
Staff advocated for Option 1, claiming it was the least expensive, and that when the city needs to renew its municipal waste permit, yard waste in gutters will be regulated and that the new permit will dictate that this practice will no longer be permitted.
While council members agreed that a move to containerization was necessary, and concurred on the benefits of a containerization program–including increased bike safety, improvements in storm water quality, less street debris, and the ability to add compostable materials to yard waste–they advocated for a more gradual transition, and were thus unwilling to follow staff’s recommendation, at least for now.
There was also consensus that Option 4 and Option 5 were not ones council wished to consider.
There was concern expressed among council about how residents, especially seniors and people with disabilities would handle the transition to green waste containerization. They also acknowledged concerns from citizens who felt they would not be able to fit their yard waste into a container.
While the the pros and cons of Option 2 and 3 were considered, there was a general feeling among council members that many more questions needed to be asked before they would be ready to adopt something.
Brett Lee stated his position on the issue most clearly, saying that he was ready to vote on the issue that night and that he felt Option 3 was the best solution with the idea that the city would ultimately move to option 1 after a multiple years transition period.
After some discussion, Mayor Krovoza proposed that staff consider a hybrid of option 2 and 3 which he coined Option 2.5, which allowed for seasonal street pick-up with the addition of 4 free special pick-ups a year.
Ultimately, staff was directed to come back with a cost analysis on this option, as well as Option 3 relative to Option 1.
There were also questions directed to John Geisler from DWR, who was present at the meeting, about what the cost differences between Option 1 and Option 2 and 3. Dan Wolk seemed to think the cost wouldn’t be dramatically different. Geisler stated that there were too many variables to consider and until those got worked out a price estimation could not be given.
Council seemed particularly interested in knowing the cost associated with arranged pick-up ups, either to the city, if this service was provided to the customer without charge, or to the customer it they were too be billed for it.
Option #3 is the best solution.
Keep the fee high enough to offset the additional costs.
Those that don’t want to pay it can figure out a way to stuff all of their green waste in a container.
Here is the reason that I want option #3.
I DON’T HAVE ROOM IN MY YARD TO STORE ANOTHER LARGE ENOUGH CONTAINER!
AND I KNOW I AM NOT ALONE WITH THIS PROBLEM!
And YES, I just shouted that point.
With option #3, I would reject having a green waste container and just pay for street pickup as needed.
“I DON’T HAVE ROOM IN MY YARD TO STORE ANOTHER LARGE ENOUGH CONTAINER!”
Darn it Frankly, I had a canned answer ready knowing that you were going to complain about this. But because you are being reasonable about accepting other options I can’t use it.
By the way, there seemed to be consensus among council members that the claw remain an option, it will come with a higher price tag though.
So DWR gets yet another way to increase their already excessive profits, while ratepayers get to spend exorbitant amounts to maintain Davis as a tree city.
My 50′ corkscrew willow generates way more biomass than can ever be cut up and placed in a small 95 gallon cart.
For me, the solution is simple- if yard waste must be placed in containers to increase DWR’s profits I will cut down my willow tree. I simply can not afford to maintain it without claw pickup on a regular basis.
I can’t help but notice the six houses on my cul de sac street whose lawns are browned out form zero irrigation since the City jacked up water costs. So now we get brown lawns and trees being removed. Davis is becoming an over priced ugly bedroom city for Sac. What a shame. I guess it’s time to move on.
Roger, good post. What’s ironic is that the city owns many of the trees on front yard property that only they can prune but the homeowner is still responsible for cleaning up leaves and fallen branches. If you want to cut one of their trees down you have to go through a city review process and can get heavily fined if you don’t. So is the city now making it harder and more expensive for the homeowner to take care of their trees? The least they can do is supply free leaves and branch pickup during the fall months with up to four more pickups for people like you with messy willow trees.
“So DWR gets yet another way to increase their already excessive profits, while ratepayers get to spend exorbitant amounts to maintain Davis as a tree city.”
DWR seems it be favoring Option 1, which would not affect their profit margins at all. It’s council members that are pushing for the more expensive alternatives as it would give community members more options to deal with their organic waste, and they seem to think this is worth the increased costs that come with it.
Way too over-priced, but mostly still lovely.
Roger, I would be very happy to come out to talk with you about how to handle the biomass of your corkscrew willow. Having 15 years of experience using our green can to handle all the green biomass in our yard in El Macero (where my wife and I do all our own gardening and pruning), I am very comfortable that you will be able to handle you willow’s biomass with your green can coupled with the occasional on-call claw pickup for those times when it is clear that the current week’s harvested biomass will far exceed the capacity of the green can.
As a point of comparison, our yard contains five 50 foot tall deciduous trees, two full grown orange trees, six shorter (30 foot tall) deciduous trees, three full grown fig trees, fifteen full grown Oleanders, a wealth of understory shrubs (the prunings from the many Pittosporums we have planted is immense), and limb and needle droppings from the four 70 foot tall Coastal Redwoods that line our property line with the neighbor to the west.
If you want to take me up on my offer, my e-mail address is mattwill@pacbell.net. Just send me a message.
At least there is one useful post here. I love watching the claw and will miss it. I favor option 2. However, I really want to know how you handle all that biomass in one green can. You are the man!
Y’all have to remember this issue came forward primarily from State (over)regulators, and Davis bicyclists’ groups. DWR did not propose a change for their “benefit”.
hpierce, you are forgetting one key community group . . . those looking to increase tourism and/or agritourism. Our streets cluttered with “abandoned” organic material blowing this way and that do not project an image of a city that either cares about itself or cares about the impression it makes on visitors . . . and with all those students on the UCD campus, we get lots and lots of visitors each year. Davis looks a lot like a Phyllis Diller hairdo.
Ahhhh… but what about the leaves, that are not raked up in piles (which actually remove ‘first flush’ contaminents from the street to a certain extent)? Should we modify the ordinance to require that every abutting property owner remove every leaf from their street to accomplish your pristine view?
Oh, and daily?
Well I was using a bit of hyperbole in describing the tourism industry zealots, but in every bit of good humor is a kernel of truth.
We have no shortage of leaves in our yard and I blow them into piles and then with a rake load them into a round plastic trash can (maybe 30 gallons in size) and then carry the trash can full of leaves around to the green can and dump the leaves in. It is really easy to compress the leaves down in the green can by simply bouncing the bottom of the empty round plastic trash can on the surface of the leaves in the green can.
In some cases I and my two neighbors to the east and the west cooperate in our respective green can use, with the occasional time when they put some of their green material in my green can, and the occasional time when I put some in theirs.
When I blow/rake our front yard I more often than not wheel the green can out to the immediate proximity of the pile I have accumulated, meaning I have a shorter distnace to carry the round trash can.
Leaves from the golf course deluge our front yard when we have a robust northern wind, so the “pristine look” doesn’t last long on windy days.
There is an ordinance for the city to force plant trees in yards. I don’t know what it is exactly, but I think this will need to be revisited going to containerized green waste.
According to staff we have to go to containerization otherwise our municipal waste permit will not be renewed.
That’s fine, but my point is that the city should not be pushing trees on residents at the same time it is pushing containers. We have been fighting the city for a while on our little lot. The tree they force-planted 24 years ago died last year and we are going to change our front landscaping this summer, and they keep trying to plant another tree to replace the one that died even though we have two trees in front already and we don’t want a third because of the planned landscaping changes.
“That’s fine, but my point is that the city should not be pushing trees on residents at the same time it is pushing containers.”
Sorry I was reading from my phone, and my eye sight is failing so I misread your comment.
My answer to this would be that plenty of other tree friendly cities have figured it this out. I think we are smart enough in Davis to do the same.
Technically, City required street tree “excrement” should be the City’s responsibility… and since we all have that obligation, should we not be paying for it equally?
“According to staff we have to go to containerization otherwise our municipal waster permit will not be renewed.”
Then how is Woodland still offering seasonal off the street (claw?) pickups? Do they lose their permit?
This question was asked by Lucas to staff and the answer was vague. Matt might be able to speak to it better?
It might be that Woodland does the claw in conjunction with containerization so not as much debris is being put loose in the street.
More debris occurs naturally IF people don’t put it near DI’s.
Michelle, I believe it is our municipal stormwater permit, not our municipal wastewater (sewer) permit.
I think that’s what I was trying to type, I’m really regretting not taking that typing class in high school…
What do you mean “our” Matt? Does your CSA have the same permit? If not, why not?
Hortense, why is it so important to you that we draw a Maginot Line down the middle of Mace Boulevard. Do you pull your pants on any differently than I do? We are all part of the same community the same way the Bronx and Brooklyn and Manhattan and Queens are part of the same community. My County taxes pay for services for you and other City of Davis residents that you don’t pay for. The health Department and the Agriculture Department being just two such services. As you have pointed out, I don’t pay for City of Davis road repair, a service I clearly derive some benefit from. In the end the monies move in and move out of the City and the County in a balanced, even-handed way. Your superior attitude toward the slum dwellers in El Macero. As I said above, we pull on our pants just the same as you do, and we contribute to the vibrance and sustainability of the community just the same way as you do.
Frankly, I find it hard to believe that any amount of (non-agricultural) tree planting in a Davis residential lot is going to create a planted environment that is going to create more biomass than our yard currently does. Our 15 years of experience using our green can tells me that one green can can handle all the green biomass in virtually every yard in Davis coupled with the occasional on-call claw pickup for those times when it is clear that the current week’s harvested biomass will far exceed the capacity of the green can.
As noted earlier, our yard contains five 50 foot tall deciduous trees, two full grown orange trees, six shorter (30 foot tall) deciduous trees, three full grown fig trees, fifteen full grown Oleanders, a wealth of understory shrubs (the prunings from the many Pittosporums we have planted is immense), and limb and needle droppings from the four 70 foot tall Coastal Redwoods that line our property line with the neighbor to the west.
So get planting! You have a lot of catching up to do.
I recently removed two 20-year old “fruitless” plums because they dropped copious plum berries on my nice patio and attracted rodents to dinner. I replaced them with 4 6′ x 2′ galvanized feeding troughs filled with bamboo (the runner type) as per recommendation from the bamboo master Don Shor. In addition, I have ivy, rose vines, redwoods and a neighbor tree that grows some pods containing a sticky white glue-like substance and I have to trim that damn thing every year or our yard and house gets trashed by the sticky substance. I also have a big Ash tree and a black pine tree in front.
I guess I could do a bit of trimming here and there, but I tend to do it 2-3 times a year. And each time I end up with 2-3 piles… each that would be difficult to get into the container. And to get any of it in the container, I would have to spend much more time cutting it into smaller pieces.
But my primary point is that I have absolutely no room to store another container… especially one large enough to hold my green waste when I need it. And since I don’t generate much green waste but a few times a year, it would sit empty most of the time.
I have thought about moving to a place with a larger yard (one where I can store a few large containers), but my existing small property tax bill combined with Davis’s high home costs make it a difficult financial justification… and there is that ongoing concern that I might need to move the business at some point as we continue to grow and are unable to find suitable replacement real estate in Davis… hence the need to move away.
Frankly said . . .
“I guess I could do a bit of trimming here and there, but I tend to do it 2-3 times a year. And each time I end up with 2-3 piles… each that would be difficult to get into the container. And to get any of it in the container, I would have to spend much more time cutting it into smaller pieces.”
Frankly, in my early years I used to cut the 6-8 foot long oleander stalks (very similar shape and size to your bamboo stalks if you cut them off at the base) into two 3-4 foot lengths so they would fit into the green can, but in recent years I did the mathematics and figured that between $8 to $12 per year for the $4 per pile “on-call” pick-up was money well spent, so when I’m doing an “Oleander pruning sweep” I drag the prunings out to the road and it makes a nice 5’x 5′ x 5’pile. If my pruning is more targeted rather than attacking all fifteen Oleanders in one fell swoop, I simply take a plastic garbage can out to the Oleander and clip the stalks into two parts at the moment when I cut the stalk off the plant. When the garbage can gets 3/4 full of greens, I carry it to the green can and dump it in. Easy peasy.
Frankly said . . .
“But my primary point is that I have absolutely no room to store another container… especially one large enough to hold my green waste when I need it. And since I don’t generate much green waste but a few times a year, it would sit empty most of the time.”
Here too my experience says that the solution is there. My side yard is 5 feet wide and 20 feet long. The first 5 foot by 4 foot space is the “landing space that has a gate to the backyard garden area on one side, a door into the garage on the second side, the path to the front gate on the third side and the property line on the fourth side. The concrete path takes up 3 feet of the 5 feet along the remaining 16 feet to the front gate. The remaining 2 foot by 16 foot space is used in two equal parts. There is an 8 foot by 2 foot redwood potting bench / work bench (that has the gas meter below its surface and the electric meter and electrical fuse box panel above the surface), and then the three DWR cans sitting side by side in the remaining 8 foot by 2 foot area. It is a lot like the cells in an Excel spreadsheet . . . neat, orderly and functional.
Would surprise me if Don recomended bamboo. As I recall, it’s an invasive “grass”. But i could very well be wrong.
And, non-native… like eucaylipsis (sp?)
http://redwoodbarn.com/bambooallabout.html
Everything you could want to know about bamboo, and more.
Did not know about the “runner” “clumper” thing, thought they were all runners…
It also makes for good, if not a little soft, flooring.
Michelle Millet writes “DWR seems it be favoring Option 1, which would not effect their profit margins at all.”
Option 1 replaces expensive claw service with much less expensive containerized pickup. Why would you say DWR profits would be unaffected? Not only do they get to charge the same price for much less service, the also get to turn around and charge folks for 20 yard dumpsters when they are unable to get rid of green waste any other way. I think that many people don’t realize the volume of green waste generated in some of Davis’ larger yards. I compost all my tree leaves. This year I composted six cubic yards of leaves alone. Trees generate a lot of wood waste as well.
Municipalities all over the state have switched to containerization of green waste simply because it is much cheaper. So a franchise who continues to charge the same rate and reduces their costs substantially stands to increase their profits. Make no mistake. Profits for DWR are what is driving this entire change.
“Option 1 replaces expensive claw service with much less expensive containerized pickup. Why would you say DWR profits would be unaffected? ”
I’m not saying this. DWR is saying it. It’s in the staff report and DWR stated this fact at the council meeting Tuesday.
“I’m not saying this. DWR is saying it. It’s in the staff report and DWR stated this fact at the council meeting Tuesday.”
DWR might be saying it but is it “fact”? I would think container pickup is cheaper because it only takes one man to operate the truck, not two men with one on the claw and one in the truck currently.
“DWR might be saying it but is it “fact”? I would think container pickup is cheaper because it only takes one man to operate the truck, not two men with one on the claw and one in the truck currently.”
According to DWR the same number of vehicles and personal would be required for a containerization only program as is currently required with the claw.
As a side note, from what I understand the move to containerization was not instigated by DWR. From my understanding the city instigating the switch, for various reasons, including storm water permitting issues, waste diversion benefits, and bike safety.
That doesn’t make sense, maybe it should be checked into a little deeper by city staff. Option 1 should require one less vehicle and one less man per crew. Is DWR saying this to try and save jobs?
They grilled DWR on this issue on Tuesday. Its about 2:30 hours in if you want to watch it. This is what DWR said
Apparently the claw uses 4 people who work 4 10 hours days, using 4 pieces of equipment.
Containerization would require 4 people and 4 trucks (basically they would be on the same cycle as trash and recycling collection)
So, a “push”?
To put the cost to end use customers into perspective, my wife and I have three cans total, one 95 gallon grey trash can, one 95 gallon green waste can, and one blue and black can that handles paper on one side and paper on the other. The green can costs us $37.35 per Quarter ($12.45 per month) and the other two cans combined cost us $64.08 per Quarter ($21.36 per month). The combined bill for all three cans (plus loose cardboard pickup) is $101.43 per Quarter ($33.81 per month). Our on-call green pile pickups cost us $4.00 per 5 foot X 5 foot X 5 foot pile.
How does $33.81 per month compare to what Davis residents currently pay per month?
Damn… you El Macero folks have cheap garbage rates compared to those of those of us in the City…. because the ‘Pauls’ live there?
(focused on the main rate, not the green waste… still, is the difference in City rates an El Macero subsidy?
The total bill is the total bill. We haven’t received our 2014 rate increase yet, so our 2013 rate of $33.81 per month compares to the City’s 2013 rate of $30.63 per month, and once we have gotten our 2014 price increase from DWR the new prices in El Macero will compare to the City’s 2014 rate of $37.06 per month.
I don’t believe they both live in El Macero. One maybe. My guess is that the County does their negotiating with DWR a bit differently on the individual components, but in the end the total bill is very much the same our $33.81 per month in 2013 compares to the City’s 2013 rate of $30.63 per month, and once we have gotten our 2014 price increase from DWR the new prices in El Macero will then be comparable to the City’s 2014 rate of $37.06 per month.
Of course one possibility is that the costs to DWR for containerized pickup of green waste are really lower than claw pickup, because the other two cans are done identically in the City and in El Macero. We get periodic street sweeping for that fee as well.
i guess i’m still at a loss as to why dozens of other cities, most of them presumably with trees, have been able to make green waste containerization work with out the end of the world calamity that some here would suggest
I have a similar concern as “Frankly” regarding storing the bins. I would also only use the bin a couple of times a year. I live in a duplex with a tiny yard and no room for another huge container. I have the smallest size of garbage possible already and we are squeezed for space. Another can would block my gate because our cans are not allowed to be visible. I compost nearly everything and don’t want this can. Could there be an option to not have a green waste container at all for those residents who wouldn’t use one?
On a tangent, in Santa Cruz they have 10 gallon garbage cans offered to residents who make real attempts to minimize their trash. In a city like Davis, couldn’t we have some incentives for those residents willing to reduce their footprint?