2005 Recycling Pilot Program Report

Home

respondents in the weekly collection area prefe�rred their method. While residents preferred the method they tested, rnost were not wiiling to pay more for the service. Residents were asked if they were willing to pay more and if so how much. They were given price incrernents of $.25, $.50, $1.00 and $5.00 a month more. In the Single-Streazn area 49% of respondents said they were willing to pay more for the service and 45% of respondents in the weekly collection area said they were willing to pay rnore. The exception was the more affluent Contrast area where 64% of respondents said they were willing to pay more for single-stream sex-vice. Thirty-six percent of those in the Contrast area willing to pay more said they'd pay a dollar a month more. Respondents in the Two Bin area were not asked if they would be willing to pay more because under the current program they can get the ttx�o bins with wheels without an additional charge. Respondents were asked to rank what they valued most in a recycling program and wanted the City to Table 11 consider when making any changes. The What Do You Value Most in the Recycling Program choices were: how convenient the f Ranked from 1— 4 with one beinq the most +mportant. Average Rank) prOg]CaTri 15 t01150, how much they pay for 1.93 1.95 2.08 How much the program benefits the enviror�ment How convenient the program is for me to use How much I pay for the program 3.26 How much information the City sends me about recycling the program, how much the program benefits the environment, and how much information the City sends about recycling. Choices were ranked from 1— 4 with one being the most irnportant. The top three choices were closely ranked with Environxnentai Benefit firsi at 1.93 average rank, followed by Convenience at 1.95 average rank az�d Cost at 2.08 average rank. The amount of information sent was substantially behind at 3.26 average rank. Participants in the single-stream test areas were also asked if they were concerned about issues raised by memb�rs of the public in co�nmunications with the City Council during �he summer of 2003. The issues raised were that a national study showed collection costs for single-stream go down while the local vendor is offering the service at a price increase, that there was no competition for lower rates because only one company offers the service, or ihat more xnaterial may be thrown away at recycling center due to damage or conta�nination. Respondents could also choose that they were not concemed about any of these. In the Single-stream area 46% of respondents said they were concerned that there was no coxnpetition, 3Q% were concexn.ed that more material may be thrown out, 30% were not concern about any of these issues and 27% were concerned that local prices increase. In the Cantrast area 42% of respondents said they were concerned that there was no competition, 34% were not concerned about any of these issues, 29% were concerned that local prices increase, and 28% were concerned that more material m.ay be thrown out. Results specific to individual test areas are detailed in profile sections for each area. The surveys and results are Appendix E. 24