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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan FIGURE 8-2 CURRENT GARBAGE CART SIZES IN PLACE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY CUSTOMERS 79.80% The current policy is that single-family customers can request a 35, 65 or 95 gallon garbage cart. The cart size may be switched once per year without a fee; additional switches are charged a fee. TABLE 8-4 JURISDICTIONAL COMPARISON OF 2011/2012 SINGLE-FAMILY RATES AND SERVICES City 0.70% 7.40% Variable Rate 12.80% Monthly Rate for 95 Gallon Cart Davis No $28.87 Dixon No $24.95 Fairfield Yes $20.02 Folsom Yes $25.50 Sacramento Yes $38.31 Sac. County Yes $30.76 DRAFT Vacaville No $23.77 Vallejo Yes $71.28 West Sac. Yes $24.13 Woodland Yes $36.67 35 galon cart 65 gallon cart 95 gallon cart 190 gallon cart The study that was conducted in 2009 only took into account the landfill disposal fees and did not take into account the added costs of ordering, storing, maintaining parts for 3 different cart sizes, or the increased administrative costs for maintaining different customer classes. With the extensive list of items that are acceptable for recycling, the amount of trash going into a garbage cart should be significantly reduced in 2012. Most of what is left in residential garbage is food scraps, diapers, plastic film and wrap, expanded polystyrene, food soiled paper and other putrescible materials. If a residential foods scrap collection is adopted, food scraps and food soiled paper would be removed from the waste stream as well. If a customer is recycling effectively, they should easily be able to fit one week’s worth Page | 8-74
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan of waste into a single 65 gallon garbage cart. Recycling service is provided at no additional cost, only trash has a charge associated with collection. So if a family generates more than the typical amount of waste, looking closer at what recyclables are still in their waste should reduce their amount of trash, increase their recycling and keep them using a smaller garbage cart, effectively saving money. Another argument in favor of a variable can rate structure is one of social engineering: if you provide people with a smaller sized garbage cart, they will generate less waste (this idea of “right sizing” a garbage cart is based on today’s world of extensive recycling programs, composting options and reducing waste). This also brings up the discussion about equitable billing. Why should customers who generate less waste pay the same as customers who generate more? Those who generate more waste probably should pay more for the additional recycling outreach required to shift behavior. Small garbage carts may fill more quickly. Experience in other jurisdictions with single-family variable can rate structures shows that when customers are confronted with a full garbage container, they will put excess garbage in the recycling container. This has a negative impact on the quality of the recycled material. As part of a switch to a variable can rate, additional outreach will have to be generated during the holidays to ensure that excess trash does not go into the recycling cart. If the City were to switch to a single-family variable can rate structure, an outreach campaign would need to be launched to target customers that switch from a 96 gallon cart to a 65 or 32 gallon cart size. The campaign would address the necessity of separating out recyclables to prevent customers from placing excess trash in their recycling carts. If the City wants to change to a single-family variable can rate structure, such a change would need to be reflected in the contract with DWR, requiring a contract amendment. The City would also need to give DWR adequate time to order and distribute new garbage carts. The City might consider setting the default customer size at 65 gallons, and build a rate structure above and below the 65 gallon charge. Rate comparisons could be done using cities of similar size and approximate transportation costs (see Table O-4). City Council may next consider switching to a single-family variable can rate in June 2013 as part of the Proposition 218 rate process. The City is working on a survey of single-family residents that will include questions about cart size, how full carts typically are on pick-up day, and how they feel about a variable can rate structure. The results of this survey will be presented to Council when they meet to discuss the possibility of switching to a single-family variable can rate structure. DRAFT It is important to note the time required under the Proposition 218 process for rate changes. After approval of the rate structure, the City would need to prepare and send a Public Hearing notice to customers. The notice must be mailed 60 days before the Public Hearing date. At the Public Hearing (which occurs during two City Council meetings) the rate change must be read twice (September 2013); Council can vote to approve the rate change after the second reading. Forty five days after the approval the rates can go into effect (December 2013). This same process would be repeated with every rate change that is required. Council gives staff direction to proceed with variable can rate—September 25, 2012 Council approves rate structures—April 2013 Council approves Prop 218 Notice—June 2013 Council approves rates—September 2013 Page | 8-75
Page 1 and 2:
DRAFT
Page 3 and 4:
2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
Page 89: 2012 Davis Integrated Waste Managem
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?