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

2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan
4.2
Evaluation of Alternatives
4.2.1 Yard Material Carts
An alternative to collecting yard materials loose in the street is to “containerize” the yard materials—to collect
it in carts, similar to how trash and recycling is collected. The City recognizes that any discussion of
containerization of yard materials should be considered in conjunction with a residential and commercial food
scrap collection.
As of October 2012, there are only 4 cities in California that offer exclusive loose in the street pick-up of yard
materials: Davis, Sacramento, San Jose and Modesto. In November 2012, City of Sacramento voters approved
a measure to containerize yard materials throughout the city.
While containerizing yard materials has historically been a contentious issue in Davis, the concept of
containerization is not new. In fall 2002, the City began a containerization pilot program on East 8th Street,
between B Street and the railroad tracks to enhance the safety of bicyclists. All the residents and businesses on
that section of East 8th Street placed their yard materials in 90 gallon wheeled carts for pick-up. This pilot is
still running. The City attempted to expand the pilot area in 2007, but the attempt failed.
One of the key issues with containerization, particularly as it relates to the goals of the Plan, is its effect on
diversion. There is the potential that containerization of yard materials can lead to less material being collected.
With loose-in-the-street collection of yard materials, customers can place as much yard materials as they wish,
provided they follow the proper pile placement guidelines. Customers seem to be taking full advantage of the
virtually unlimited yard materials collection; see Appendix L for DWR yard material collection data. Once
residents are no longer given the simple option of piling virtually unlimited amounts of yard materials on the
street and are limited to what can be placed into one or two carts each week, any excess materials may be placed
into the trash or recycling carts instead. This is common problem in other jurisdictions, particularly those with
variable cart rates. Contamination of recycling carts is an issue of concern, and must be considered and
coordinated out with DWR.
Containerization also may lead to increased contamination of the yard material collected. DWR collectors
cannot see what is in a cart until it is being emptied—however, with the loose-in-the-street collection system, it
is much easier for drivers to visually estimate the amount of contamination in piles. More heavily contaminated
piles may be skipped until the contamination is removed.
DRAFT
Another item to consider is the potential impacts associated with residents having to store an additional cart on
their property.
By switching from loose-in-the-street to containerized collection of yard materials, the City may be able to cut
back on the weekly street sweeping performed by DWR and reduce DWR related charges, potentially lowering
solid waste rates for customers. Street sweeping could be done every other week, or once a month (most
common), except perhaps during leaf drop season.
Interestingly, when it comes to overall cost of the yard material collection system, several factors come into
play. It takes a driver more time to empty carts full of yard materials than it takes to scoop up the same material
loose in the street. In switching to collecting yard material in carts, there is also the added cost of purchasing all
the carts. A major factor in the total cost of the two collection systems is the frequency of street sweeping. In
Davis, street sweeping is performed every week following yard material collection, to clean up any remaining
Page | 4-10