Laserfiche WebLink
218 those efforts, including providing property managers access to educational <br />219 materials in various languages as needed. <br />220 <br />221 Discussion among members and Mr. Goodwin included tonnage comparisons <br />222 since 2006 for multi-family properties and the reason for some of those variables <br />223 (e.g. vacancies and/or turnover of units, changes in on-site property managers, <br />224 education of new tenants, renovations during some of that time); need for <br />225 landlords to provide motivation and education to their tenants to increase <br />226 awareness and use of the program; higher and lower income property findings for <br />227 multi-family properties and various languages involved; and lack of financial <br />228 incentives for tenants who pay the same rent whether or not they recycle <br />229 compared to the financial incentives found for single -family homes. <br />230 <br />231 Further discussion included variables in commercial recycling scenarios (multi- <br />232 family rental properties); need to consider a discount program or some incentive <br />233 to encourage more recycling to reduce garbage; the unique program for Roseville <br />234 and Eureka Recycling for including multi-family properties in tkre <br />dential <br />235 hauling program; and the need to make sure education and infois <br />236 available to support those efforts. INe <br />237 <br />238 Mr. Goodwin reviewed the efforts used by Eureka to separately management, <br />239 measure tonnage, and track tonnage by building through using separate trucks for <br />240 pick-up at those multi-family buildings. <br />241 <br />242 Mr. Goodwin reviewed the reductions experienced Rally <br />evenue sharing based on <br />243 the composition of materials, and the actual commmarket in selling those <br />244 materials. <br />245 <br />246 "Mr ozniak asked �thatEurekaNcone to compute and show revenue <br />247 sharing and separate composition of rials, using established indices <br />248 calculated for revenues generated minimum handling costs. Member Wozniak <br />249 also requested that Eureka at a minimum show the running average on their chart, <br />250 and whether greater or lower than average, especially if the size of the chart <br />251 requires them to drop the year 2006 to incorporated the year 2015 in their next <br />252 presentation. <br />253 <br />254 Mr. Goodwin advised that their report editors could provide some type of graph <br />255 commodity by commodity similar to that used for revenues. <br />256 <br />257 Chair Stenlund noted, with so much data tracked and available, it was interesting <br />258 to see the actual trends. <br />259 <br />260 Mr. Goodwin concurred, and reviewed in detail how the residual rate was <br />261 achieved; commending the City for their retaining their low rate typically well <br />262 below 2%, and even when moving from dual to single sort, staying well below the <br />263 national average of 5-10% by remaining at 2.5%. Even though the residual rate <br />Page 6 of 13 <br />