Laserfiche WebLink
Further discussion included results of research from the plastic container <br />collection held in 2009 at the Nature Center; discussions with specific <br />manufacturers and alerting them to consumer desires for their packaging <br />materials; differences in types of glass in the melting process; reduced operating <br />costs initiated by Eureka to address current economics and reduced revenue <br />sharing concerns; renegotiated contracts with other communities that were served <br />by Eureka; and how to determine the limit of Roseville's participation rate. <br />Additional discussion included possible and additional educational and marketing <br />efforts of Eureka to school students in understanding the recycling process and <br />taking that education home for practical implementation and education of their <br />entire household; the changes in print materials with publishers changing their <br />business models and going on-line based on consumer trends, but significantly <br />impacting tonnage collected; changes sought in state mandated glass products <br />rather than plastics; how to determine and alert the public to carbon release <br />numbers; and how Eureka's program compares to their competitors. <br />Mr. Goodwin responded by reviewing Eureka's business model and their <br />company's mission and ultimate goal to see everything recycled into new <br />products, and their commitment to providing ahigh-quality end product to the <br />marketplace with the highest level of participation based on the convenience and <br />environmental benefit to consumers, while allowing for program flexibility to <br />meet the ever-changing needs of the recycling marketplace, indicated by the <br />mechanical design of their receiving and sorting plant. <br />Mr. Pratt noted the specific data included in the annual report, not previously <br />available to the City to determine the affects of its recycling program. <br />Further discussion among the group included, revenue sharing changes in relation <br />to collection fees; billing errors found in the City's individual unit billing for <br />multi-family buildings and rate increases to correct that inadvertent error; <br />additional materials including in current collections; ongoing education and <br />tracking of participation throughout the community; gross weight of trucks <br />(28,000 GW unloaded and rating at 33,000 GW when loaded, but averaging at <br />approximately 31,000 GW loaded); day-to-day operations for Eureka trucks; and <br />benefits of weekly recycling versus other another collection schedule. <br />Mr. Goodwin offered to provide comparison information to the commission <br />between original collection studies and testing of bi-weekly to weekly collections. <br />Chair DeBenedet thanked Mr. Pratt and Mr. Goodwin for their report and <br />comments; and referenced an e-mail from resident Bob Willmus received by <br />members earlier today and related to the City's current recycling contractor <br />Eureka, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part thereof. Chair <br />DeBenedet noted that, while the e-mail referenced the Commission's review of <br />