Tag Cloud
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Green waste debate to resume
by Kathleen Haley, published on February 25, 2011 at 6:04 PM
Storyline: City Services
Loading images
A city staff proposal to eventually stop loose-in-the-street green waste pickup and move to container pickup will not work for all city residents, Interim City Manager Gus Vina said in an interview Thursday.
In tree-laden areas such as Midtown, a container is not adequate to hold all of the fallen leaves, Vina said, explaining why he pulled the green waste issue from the City Council’s agenda on Tuesday.
“I want to make sure I’ve challenged staff enough on creativity and the solutions that are possible,” Vina said.
The plan that Vina delayed would have encouraged moving away from loose-in-the street pickup and raised rates for residents who continue that method of pickup. Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said the green waste issue will be on the City Council agenda again within a couple weeks.
The city uses two systems for green waste pickup because of a law that was passed in 1977. Measure A states that the city cannot compel residents to put their green waste in containers. Therefore, the city must continue to provide loose-in-the-street pickup.
The proposal that was pulled from the council agenda Tuesday asked the City Council to take steps to eventually overturn Measure A. This would allow the city to enforce containerized pickup as the sole method.
Voters would have to approve a counter-measure that would abolish Measure A.
City staff had planned to ask the council on Tuesday to consider draft language for a counter-measure “for use if the City Council determines at a subsequent time to call such a measure to the ballot,” the Feb. 22 staff report said.
But Vina said Thursday that changing the measure doesn’t solve the green waste problem for people living “in heavy areas where a container doesn’t do it.”
“Land Park and Midtown are good examples,” he said Friday. “Basically, we have lots of trees, and in older areas, the trees are big.”
The proposal also included major rate increases for people who choose loose-in-the-street pickup over containers as long as Measure A is still in effect. A resident who chooses loose-in-the-street pickup now pays a fee of $13.71 per month. One of the ideas suggested in the proposal would raise the rate to about $40 per month.
City staff explained in the proposal that the number of loose-in-the-street customers has declined over time – the 103,787 container customers far surpass the 12,121 loose-in-the-street customers. The number of loose-in-the-street customers no longer pay enough in fees to pay for the cost of the service, the report said.
“The current loose-in-the-street rate of $13.71 was sufficient to recover the full cost when 57,000 customers were putting their green waste in the street,” according to the report. “With only 12,121 loose-in-the-street customers remaining paying the same rate, there is now insufficient funding to cover the cost of the service.”
Because there are no longer enough customers to keep the rate at $13.71 per month, city staff say the rate should be raised.
Green waste pickup is a recurring point of contention between the Utilities Department, which favors containers, and some residents, who want to keep their loose-in-the-street pickup.
The department’s position, which is included in the staff report, is that the containers are cheaper and better for the environment than loose-in-the-street pickup. It takes two vehicles to do loose-in-the-street pickup, while only one is needed for containers, according to the department. Reducing the number of vehicles helps prevent pollution, the department points out.
Read the Feb. 22 green waste proposal that Vina withdrew from the council’s agenda here.
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I also have the same scavenging problem that I have between the trash and recycling containers. Scavengers will go through the containers looking for cans/bottles and they transfer content from container to container. By the time the City gets to the recycling or green waste containers, there's a good chance they've been contaminated. And short of sitting guarding them on the street until they are emptied on collection day, there's nothing I can do about it.
I totally agree with you. Scavengers in Tahoe Park systematically remove all items of value from residential recycling containers almost as soon as they're put out to the curb. The city planned to collect the valuable recyclable material to pay for the service, but the scavengers make that impossible. Even though the containers plainly say: "NO SCAVENGING ALLOWED", the law is never enforced.
I wish I could get one side of my street to refuse the green waste containers, and the other to opt for them. If we could all coordinate that effort, we could have all of of green waste collected without stuffing our sewer drains full of leaves, which in turn causes local flooding every other storm. While I agree that Sacramento produces an extreme amount of green waste, I not longer trust my neighbors to place "responsible" piles on the curb for pick up. Half the time the piles are right in the gutter and end up making a huge mess.
Sounds like city staff is still siphoning off utility money for other departments,
Vina has it right... to compare the central city to areas like Natomas where developers were allowed to plant small specie trees that will never grow above the rooftops is comparing apples and oranges.
Quoting from the article "One of the ideas suggested in the proposal would raise the rate to about $40 per month."
Based on your comment above, it seems the proposal of $40 / month for loose pickup would be illegal. So was the city proposing an illegal rate increase, or was the $40 proposal based on voters overturning Measure A?
Why did we switch to this system? The only thing I can think of was that the intended result was to get rid of loose on the street without having to overturn Measure A.
1. Force most people to switch with an opt-out program.
2. Rates on those who do opt-out go way up (imagine the cost if just one property were left, ha!)
3. Watch people switch to containerized waste out of a serious economic incentive.
If you can't directly legislate it this is a pretty good way of achieving the policy change. Yet somehow it seems wrongheaded, immoral and against the directly expressed will of the people represented.
A lot of older neighborhoods in North Sacramento and, like Isaac pointed out, Thaoe Park not only have a lot of trees but large plots. In other words, you have the home and a fairly large backyard and/or front yard. That adds up to a lot of green waste which can't really be crammed into a can.
Got to say this is ironic considering we're the "City of Trees".
Second, before any changes in the system we all paid fairly low bills to collect waste on the street. It just happens to be expensive to support two different collection systems for the same neighborhood at once.
Third, we have expressed our opinion on this issue through a direct vote. Measure A was clear and this is a way around that expressed will of our city using economic means to squeeze out those who oppose the move or have tons of waste generated by giant trees on city property next to our houses.
Obviously this was the city's transition plan to overturn Measure A's intent. There are legitimate issues with loose street pickup. But instead of simply listing those, Gus Vina chose to hide behind an "insufficient customer" argument, knowing full well that the city's actions purposefully chased those customers away from loose street pickup.
You gotta wonder why a city would work so hard to undermine the will of the Measure A voters that clearly wanted loose street pickup for their city.
But In the Chinese democracy of Gus Vina's City Hall, the voters and their will are just a nuisance that must be circumvented.
The city crews can't be expected to scrutinize a list for who has paid for LITS and who hasn't so the system is not working.
----------------------
Why not? Private companies like El Dorado County Disposal (A Waste Mgmt company) have no problem whatsoever only servicing up to date accounts.
On these boards I have often questioned the wisdom of Local 39 workers and their corrup union management. But even I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of reading a house address!
If they were to survey the folks who are currently using the can, I'd bet you that most think it's a mandatory program. Otherwise why would the city deposit another can on my property?
It took me multiple phone calls and faxes - both before the can arrived and after - to get out of this program.
I don't have the room for a third can and I've got a lot of trees on my property. This is a sneaky bureaucrat's way of working around the law.
Volunteer my butt...
What is amazing is how much effort the city has gone through to put all these hurdles in place, in direct opposition to Measure A, which was specifically approved by voters to prevent exactly this from happening.
Reminds of how tin pot dictators claim they have open elections, never mind that any viable alternative candidate has been locked in jail. Same thing here... you can have loose street pickup if you want, except we will make it hard to stay with the program, and once we chase everybody away we will raise the rates!