2015-04-28_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

those efforts, including providing property managers access to educational materials in various languages as needed. Discussion among members and Mr. Goodwin included tonnage comparisons since 2006 for multi-family properties and the reason for some of those variables (e.g. vacancies and/or turnover of units, changes in on-site property managers, education of new tenants, renovations during some of that time); need for landlords to provide motivation and education to their tenants to increase awareness and use of the program; higher and lower income property findings for multi-family properties and various languages involved; and lack of financial incentives for tenants who pay the same rent whether or not they recycle compared to the financial incentives found for single-family homes. Further discussion included variables in commercial recycling scenarios (multi- family rental properties); need to consider a discount program or some incentive to encourage more recycling to reduce garbage; the unique program for Roseville and Eureka Recycling for including multi-family properties in their residential hauling program; and the need to make sure education and information is available to support those efforts. Mr. Goodwin reviewed the reductions experienced in revenue sharing based on the composition of materials, and the actual commodity market in selling those materials. Member Wozniak asked that Eureka continue to compute and show revenue sharing and separate composition of materials, using established indices calculated for revenues generated minimum handling costs. Member Wozniak also requested that Eureka at a minimum show the running average on their chart, and whether greater or lower than average, especially if the size of the chart requires them to drop the year 2006 to incorporated the year 2015 in their next presentation. Mr. Goodwin advised that their report editors could provide some type of graph commodity by commodity similar to that used for revenues. Chair Stenlund noted, with so much data tracked and available, it was interesting to see the actual trends. Mr. Goodwin concurred, and reviewed in detail how the residual rate was achieved; commending the City for their retaining their low rate typically well below 2%, and even when moving from dual to single sort, staying well below the national average of 5-10% by remaining at 2.5%. Even though the residual rate increased minimally, Mr. Goodwin noted that the Eureka residual rate remained the envy of other single-sort facilities across the country. Page 6 of 13