My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council Work Session - 09/11/2012
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council Work Session
>
2012
>
Agenda - Council Work Session - 09/11/2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 12:23:13 PM
Creation date
9/6/2012 4:41:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
09/11/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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
Explanatory Notes <br />CPM 101 Annual Report: FY2011 Solid Waste /160 <br />Figure 14 -2 <br />• Some variation in tonnage may be due to differences in the composition of material collected and <br />from whom it was collected. For example, jurisdictions that collect bulk white goods, yard waste, <br />and other refuse in addition to regular trash are likely to record higher refuse tonnage values. <br />• The ability of a jurisdiction to minimize the number of tons of regular refuse collected is generally <br />considered to be a positive outcome. However, the ability of a jurisdiction to minimize the amount <br />of waste collected through its regular refuse program may be affected by a number of external <br />factors such as: <br />o Whether the jurisdiction operates a recycling program or a composting program <br />o Whether customer participation in recycling and /or composting is mandatory <br />o How convenient it is for customers to participate in recycling and /or composting (e.g., <br />location of collection sites and whether customers are required to prepare materials by <br />washing them or removing labels). <br />• All jurisdictions for which a value is not shown did not report the data. <br />Figure 14 -3 <br />• Differences in the level of service provided (e.g., number of pickups per week, whether hazardous <br />materials are collected) may contribute to differences in expenditure levels. <br />• Regional differences in the costs of labor, equipment, and fuel may account for some differences in <br />expenditure levels across jurisdictions. <br />• Some differences in expenditures may be attributed to economies of scale that can be achieved by <br />larger operations. <br />Figure 14 -4 <br />• The ability of a jurisdiction to minimize the number of tons of regular refuse collected is generally <br />considered to be a positive outcome. However, the ability of a jurisdiction to minimize the amount <br />of waste collected through its regular refuse program may be affected by a number of external <br />factors such as: <br />o Whether the jurisdiction operates a recycling program or a composting program <br />o Whether customer participation in recycling and /or composting is mandatory <br />o How convenient it is for customers to participate in recycling and /or composting (e.g., <br />location of collection sites and whether customers are required to prepare materials by <br />washing them or removing labels). <br />Figures 14 -5 & 14 -6 <br />• Some variation in customer ratings may be due to differences in customers' expectations with <br />regard to the types of material accepted for collection, pickup schedules, pickup locations, and other <br />factors. <br />• One factor that may influence expectations is whether customers pay for service directly or whether <br />it is funded through their taxes. Some have suggested that those who pay for service directly may <br />have higher expectations that those whose service is funded through tax revenues. <br />OICMA Center for Performance Measurement'" <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.