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