My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
200x
>
2005
>
2005-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 3:57:34 PM
Creation date
9/8/2006 9:57:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/26/2005
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />There was also a marked incrcase in contaminants in the single-stream areas that was discovered in the <br />composition sorts. Contaminant categories in the sorts included: beer, pop and water boxes; plastic bags and <br />film, other paper trash, other trash and fines. Data from the composition sorts shows contaminants increased <br />from 3.2% of the sample in the "before" period to 8.1 % in the "during" period. <br /> <br />Participants increased the amount of recycling put out for collection per person. After factoring out the <br />increase in contamination the mean pounds per household collected went from 21.33 in the "before" period <br />to 28.16 in the "during" period. <br /> <br />Ninety percent of the residents in this area approved of the single-stream system. However, some <br />participants in the single-stream areas were contacted by an outside partY.. Although the residents who <br />informed City staff of the contact said their opinions were not changed because of the contact. Some <br />residents received a phone call, while others received a post card. Accordingt()the residents who spoke to <br />City staff, the outside party gave the impression that they wanted the residents f()j1ave a favorable opinion of <br />single-stream recycling. <br /> <br />In the post-survey residents slightly less than half of residentsjn. thi~.area (48.8%) said they were willing to <br />pay more for this service. Residents said the carts were easy to moVe (86.9%) and allowed them to recycle <br />more of what they recycled before (38.8%). 13% ofiesid.ents said the cart was too big for their <br />needs and 46% were concerned that there was for 10Weuates. <br /> <br />Respondents said they were almost equally split <br />system between price (1.80 convenience <br />were ranked on a scale of one one being <br /> <br /> <br />most important component of a recycling <br />benefit (1.90). Components <br /> <br />26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.