9-27-84 Agenda & Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

neighborhoods. In the third area, col- lection was on a different day to deter- mine if same-day collection was critical to getting people to recycle. The pilot project collected news- al print, metal cans, and glass, the most common and easily recyclable house- hold wastes. The consultant calculated that recycling these materials would result in an 18 percent reduction of waste in landfills if 100 percent of the households participated. All homes in the pilot areas received chure four weeks before the first col- improvements to the program. About a set of the Recycle-3 polyethylene lection. It told residents that the pro- 35 percent of the residents responded. (plastic) containers; three stackable gram was coming and that they would Although the public relations efforts units with a different color for each be part of an experiment to determine demanded a significant amount of city recyclable. The city chose the con- if recycling would work in St. Louis staff involvement, a new program, par- tainers because they were a key com- Park. The second brochure arrived ticularly one as innovative as recycling ponent of the Santa Rosa program, with the recycling containers and in a winter climate, needed support and they provided a highly visible remain- included stickers and specific instruc- information to succeed. der for residents to recycle, people tions on how and when to recycle, and could conveniently stack them in kitch- contacts in the event of problems. ens or stairwells next to wastebaskets, Before arrival of the second bro- Results of the and they could withstand Minnesota's chure and containers, the city held a temperature extremes. The only draw- meeting in each pilot neighborhood to voluntary program back of the containers was their cost. explain the program and answer ques- Residents in the pilot areas respond- After fabrication, freight, and distribu- tions. Because some residents couldn't ed better to the program than the city tion, a set had a value of$18. attend the neighborhood meetings, the expected. At the end of the first year, To simplify the schedule, collections city also produced a cable television an average of 51 percent of the house- were on the first and third Tuesdays show which aired several times during holds were setting containers out on and Wednesdays of the month. U.S. the start-up of the pilot program. Cable any given collection day. Data from th ReCyCo, a Minneapolis company, pro- television was also useful for recycling midyear questionnaire suggested t vided the collection services. Residents updates and tips. about 75 percent of the househol put recyclables at the curb or alley, the About midway through the program, recycled something at least once a same location as refuse. residents received an update brochure month. Participation was significant in that congratulated them for participat- comparison to other recycling efforts Financing the ing in the program, and highlighted data because it was purely voluntary with on amounts they had recycled. neither ordinances to mandate recy- pilot program The update included a questionnzire cling nor differential refuse rate sched- Grants totalling $56,000 from the that asked residents for information on ules or other economic incentives to federal Community Development Block their recycling habits, willingness to encourage recycling. Grant (CDBG) program and Hennepin purchase recycling containers, and Residents in the pilot program recy- County funded the cost oc the program. problems with and suggestions for cled 834,480 pounds of materials during The project got CDBG 'ng because it would create jobs in ail emerging Stackable recycling containers can survive Minnesota's climate. facet of the solid waste industry. Hen " - nepin County provided funds to assist °-" �..a in the demonstration of a suburban ._ " _ curbside recycling program and to gain �� ,„.,,,. data to help determine the needed �,e. � :n r ; a capacity of a county disposal facility. .. 40464. The city assumed all staff and supportD -' costs. ® " . .: Public education 0y Even with the best-designed pro — _ / - gram, an effective public education effort is necessary to obtain significant ir _ citizen participation and cooperation. ilik Beyond articles in newsletters and local newspapers, the city decided that ..-t direct resident contact would beir,.-• it, necessary. s- t Two brochures provided initial direct ..a J contact. Citizens received the first bro- I. :.v►` September 1984 5 1