2005-07-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

of the other test areas. This may well be because many of these residents were not living in the area during the big recycling push of the late 80s early 90s. According to data compiled by the Community Development department, II % of the homes in this area are less than ten years old and more than 36% of the residents have lived in the area four years or less. There was also a marked increase in the percentage of paper in the recycling sample. Paper made up 58% of the sample by weight in the "before" composition sorts. In the "during" period, paper made up 78.1 % of the sample. The percentage of newspaper and boxboard in the samples remained approximately the same, but the rest of the major paper categories (HOPM, magazines and OCC) increased. Despite an increase in overall tons collected the amount of containers (bottles and cans) decreased. The percentages from the composition sorts were multiplied by the truck weights for each collection day. In the "before" period there was an average of 3,848 lbs of containers collected each collection day. In the "during" period there was an average of 1,761 lbs of containers collected each collection day. Participants increased the amount of recycling put out for collection per person. Afterfactoring out the increase in contamination the mean pounds per household (:()llected went from 26.87 in the "before" period to 34.39 in the "during" period. This area had the highest approval rating for thet~sted method at 9~..5%. However, some participants in the single-stream areas were contacted by an outside Party. Although the residents who informed City staff of the contact said their opinions were not changed becallse.ofthe contact.$ome residents received a phone call, while others received a post card. According to the residplltswho spoke to City staff, the outside party gave the impression that they wantedthe residents tol1avea favorable opinion of single-stream recycling. Sixty-four percent of the residenfsinthjsarea said they were willing to pay more for this service. In the post-survey resident said thecarts ""ere easy to move. (91.9%) and allowed them to recycle more of what they recycled before (41.4%). l'?rctislikps,. 10.2% said the 64-gallon cart was not big enough for residents needs and 42'J1o.Were. concemeq that there was no competition for lower rates. In the post surve)'participants I'ateqconvenipflce of the program the most important component with an average score of 1073. 28