10 Draft Integrated Waste Management Plan - City Council - City of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan City’s goals, provisions for capital investments, provisions for periodic amendments and some new contractor service requirements. The flexibility element is extremely important as the City Council will be considering changes to solid waste service within the next few years. Containerization of yard materials, collection of food scraps from all customers, street sweeping changes, single-family variable cart rates, and other details will be considered. Any changes to the current service not included in the new contract would require a future contract amendment. A new item in the contract currently being negotiated is a requirement for DWR to accept electronics for recycling at their 2 nd Street recycling center. Due to State laws regarding electronic recycling, someone must be onsite to gather residency information from each customer that recycles electronics. Under the new contract, DWR would accept electronics for recycling during their California Refund Value (CRV) buyback center hours, where there is already a staff person available to assist customers. Another option being discussed in the new contract is for the City of Davis to sign paperwork vouching for all the electronics dropped off at DWR, ensuring that any electronic waste dropped off after hours can be recycled without issue. The new contract also includes some flexibility for scheduling the annual Bulky Items Drop-Off Days. In the old contract, the Bulky Days were required to be in April. The new contract allows for negotiations between the City and DWR to select the best date each year. Solid Waste Service Rates At the present, only commercial customers are paying a variable garbage rate, where the service level and size of their garbage container determines their garbage charges. Currently, single-family customers are charged a flat-rate for a standard 95 gallon garbage cart. Smaller garbage carts are available upon request, however, there is no price difference in cart sizes (current service levels are discussed in detail in section 8.1.1). In order to encourage waste reduction and recycling, this Plan recommends that City Council consider switching to a variable can rate for single-family customers. Under this new system, a standard garbage cart would be 65 gallon sized. A smaller 32 gallon garbage cart would be cheaper and a larger 95 gallon cart would be more expensive. This option is discussed in detail in section 8.2.1. If yard materials are containerized, as is recommended to enable cost-effective collection of food scraps from customers, weekly street sweeping may no longer be necessary. Future solid waste rates would reflect any changes to street sweeping services. DRAFT The rate structure for commercial customers will need to be addressed in the future. At present, commercial customers have a variable rate, with the rate dependent on the service level. The cost of yard material and recycling collection is already included in the cost of trash service, so both yard material pick-up and recycling is available to all businesses at no extra cost. As evident from the commercial food scrap pilot program (see section 4.1.3), one of the biggest drawbacks to businesses participating in the program is the extra fee that is currently assessed to all businesses that collect food scraps. Instead, it is worth considering including the cost of recycling, yard material and food scrap collection into the commercial trash rates, so that all three are offered at no additional cost. Although the inclusion of food scrap collection in a commercial trash rate seems to be a simple matter, there are a few complications that must be considered carefully. First, Prop 218 requires that customers only be charged for services that they actually receive. Some commercial customers may be unable to receive food scrap Page | XI
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan collection services. The limited space found in the downtown area, for example, may not make it possible for businesses to have an organics cart for food scraps and yard material collection. Multi-family residential customers are another issue. The amount of contamination found in recycling carts at multi-family properties can be very high. Given that recycling is sorted before processing, this can be mitigated. However, food scraps and yard materials are not sorted before being sent to a composting facility. Repeated contamination may result in the customer being charged and the organics carts being hauled as trash. In such extreme circumstances, the organics carts may be removed if they are not being used properly. An extensive amount of outreach and education would be required in order to reduce contamination of organics carts if offered to multi-family properties. San Francisco has addressed contamination by banning recyclables and organics in the trash. San Jose has addressed this problem by processing all multi-family garbage as compostable material, and has achieved a 65% diversion rate from their multi-family sector. At present, there is no formal reserve policy or fund balance target for the solid waste fund. As discussed in section 8.1.2, this is something that needs to be addressed in order for the solid waste fund to have long-term financial stability. Future solid waste rate adjustments will need to consider building up a reserve fund balance consistent with the fund reserve target. For years, the City has pursued solid waste rates only on a year to year basis, with no long-term goal or plan. The City’s next Prop 218 solid waste rate process will be in June 2013. The Council would consider approving the Prop 218 Notice in June 2013, then consider approving the updated rate ordinance in September 2013. If rates are adopted, they would go into effect in December 2013. The City would consider a multi-year solid waste rate plan for up to the next 5 years if needed to implement policies requiring a long term financial commitment. This allows for some financial stability in planning and gives customers a fair glimpse of what their solid waste rates will be in the future. This is discussed in detail in section 8.3.1. As with any rate discussion, adherence to Prop 218 must always be considered. As is required under the law, customers must be properly notified of any proposal to increase utility rates. Solid Waste Policy DRAFT Several policy changes are also discussed in this plan. A few of the more important issues are discussed below. An ordinance to address the reoccurring issue of scavenging recyclables must be considered in the future. Both the City and DWR receive numerous complaints from residents and businesses alike about scavengers coming onto their property, rummaging within their trash and recycling bins, making noise and making a mess. Scavenging is often thought of as a source of additional revenue for the homeless or low-income population. However, there is a more organized element to scavenging that has appeared in the recycling market. Organized groups with flatbed trucks have been spotted accessing recycling bins and even venturing onto private property to steal recyclables from garages and side yards. Such larger scale scavenging has caused DWR to shut down all scavenging from the recycling bins in their recycling center. Previously, these bins were a resource for local “up-cyclers” (a collection of local artists, tinkerers and hobbyists) who would search through the scrap metal bins for needed pieces and parts. The scrap metal recycling bins themselves are on DWR property, and as such belong to them exclusively, giving DWR the right to limit or terminate scavenging. Currently, the City Municipal Code does clearly state that DWR takes ownership of recyclables once they are placed into the recycling carts, and that removing them is not allowed. However, the ordinance does not have a very good Page | XII
Page 1 and 2: DRAFT
Page 3 and 4: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 11: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 63 and 64:
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259:
show all

10 Draft Integrated Waste Management Plan - City Council - City of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?