Memo Discussion W/Decisions Resourses
r ~,
i \
. CITY OF HOPKINS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 14, 1993
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: Lee Gustafson, Public Works Director~
SUBJECT: Discussion with Decision Resources Ltd.
on Refuse Survey
This agenda item has been scheduled in order to give Council the
opportunity to review the results of the recent refuse survey
with the company who actually performed the work. Members of the
Decision Resources team will be attending to present their
findings to the City Council and also .to answer any questions
that arise. No Council action is being requested at this time.
As Council is aware, the city has applied for a one year
extension to the January 1, 1994 implementation date for Volume
based refuse collection. Please refer to the attached letter.
The Office of Waste Management has verbally indicated that our
... extension request will probably be approved very soon. Staff is
. hoping to have the volume based system operatiorial prior to the
dates indicated in the letter.
attachments: Results from Decision Resources Survey
Letter to Office of Waste Management
.
........
..
""
...~
.11 Decision
_II Resources Ltd..
CITY OF HOPKINS
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
ON WASTE DISPOSAL
.
The Opinions of
Single Family
Home Dwellers .
Prepared by:
Dr. Bill Morris
September, 1993
.
.
3128 Dean Court . Minneapolis. Minnesota 55416 · (612) 920-0337 · Fax (612) ~29-6166 .
.
"
',<-
I
\
.
SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS AND ANALYSIS
.
.
,~$!~1~j~~:~1;:':lmI1f)~~~t'i ~-~-;>h~~" -"i',:~'~~:j0~RW~~kiB$t~:iET,:;:.-l'i*'d <.~i,:';,",","~~ ,'''".T",p:'
---- - ~--------
C>'
.
.
HOPKINS SINGLE FAMILY HOME DWELLERS SURVEY
Solid Waste Disposal Issues
Methodology:
This study contains the results of a telephone survey o'f 300
randomly selected residents of Hopkins single family homes.
Survey responses were gathered by professional interviewers '
across the city between July 30 and August 6, 1993. The average
interview took thirteen minutes. In general, random samples such
as this yield resultsprojectable to the entire universe of
residents of Hopkins single family homes within ~ 5.8 percentage
points in 95 out of 100 cases.
Residential Demograt>hics:
Eighty-five percent of the residents in single family homes
owned them outright; only fifteen percent were renters., The
average number of residents per household was 2.5 persons.
Thirty-five percent of the households reported two residents,
4It while twenty~three percent reported four residents.
The average age of ~ respondent was 43.9 years old. Twenty-
seven percent were under 35 years old, while thirty-one percent
were over 55 years old. Up-scale White Collar occupations --
Professional-Technical and Owner-Manager -- headed forty-one
'percent of the households. Retiree-headed households were twen-
ty-two percent. Blue Collar-headed households comprised seven-
teen percent, while Clerical-Sales-headed households made up
fourteen percent. Women outnumbered men by ten percent.
. "
For more detailed analysis, the city was divided into two
zones. The North Zone, comprising fifty-four percent of the
sample, was Precincts 1, 4-7 & 9. The South Zone, the remaining
forty-six percent, was Precincts 2, 3, 8A & 8B.
Refuse Collection containers:
Ninety percent of the sample reported having one 90 gallon
container. Eight percent had two, while only two percent had
three or more containers. Between piCk-Ups, seventy-three per-
cent generally kept their container(s) outside, while twenty-
three percent stored them in their garage. Residents of the
North Zone were more likely to store their container(s) in the
. garage, while 55-64 year olds and South Zone residents were more
1
~ ~-----~-
<
apt to keep it (them) outside.
Seventeen percent said they were "very likely" to request a .
. smaller refuse container if it were available at a lower monthly .
rate; eighteen percent were "somewhat likely" to do so. Singles, · ....
over 65 year olds, retirees, and Precinct 8 residents were gener-
ally "very likely" to request a smaller containeriProfessional-
Technical headed households and residents of Precincts 1, 2 & 4
tended to be "not at all likely" to do so. Using standard market
projection techniques, 17.3 percent of the households in the city
would be expected to actually use a smaller container, if it were
offered to them at a reduced monthly cost. )
Of this group, forty-eight percent would opt for a sixty
gallon container, thirty-nine percent would favor a thirty gallon
container, and eight percent would choose a container holding
less than twenty gallons. Singles and couples were most likely
to opt for a thirty gallon container; 35-44 year olds, Owner-
Manager households, and Precinct 1 residents were more apt to
want a 60 gallon container.
In order to motivate change to a smaller container, the
average Hopkins resident would need to see. a monthly savings of
$3.80. However, almost one-third of the residents would change
only if the savings were at least $7.00 per month. The latter
figure was especially popular among Precinct 3 residents.
Most Hopkins residents were ambivalent about the shape or
configurat~on of a new, smaller refuse container. Forty-one .
percent reported they were "indifferent" between a container than . .
was the same height but smaller in width than their current one,
or restructuring their current container by cutting off a portion
of the top or placing an insert inside. Indifference was highest
among 18-24 & over 55 year olds and Precinct 1 residents. Twenty
percent favored'the former option, while twenty-one percent opted
for the latter, especially Precinct 2 residents. The city should
proceed in the most cost-effective way that staff decides upon.
CUrbside Recycling Program:
Ninety-seven percent of the households reported participat-
ing in the curbside pick-up of recyclables. Only three percent
did not do so. Ninety-five percent recycled newspapers through
the system; ninety-two percent, glassi and, ninety-one percent
recycled plastic bottles. Precinct 7 residents were even more
likely to recycle glass. Eighty-nine percent recycled aluminum
cans, while eighty-eight percent used the curbside system to
dispose of tin/steel cans. Aluminum was recycled more often by
18-24 year olds and Precinct 8B residents. Seventy-nine percent
recycled mixed paper through the City program. Over 55 year olds
and retirees were much more likely to recycle mixed paper.
At the lowest levels, sixty-six percent recycled magazines .
2
~~~MW'h;:;:<;',;r~~~.,i@;~,~::;;;":i:f:~j'18:f,;;:5{~:;'i?l~f~~.J!~~,~~~~~q,:':;E;~:;lJ;;'~';\"',!!~,,-~, .;.-:"",~
- ~~ ----~---~~
:i'
*
and sixty-five percent did the same with corrugated cardboard.
45-54 & over 65 year olds, retirees, and Precincts *4 & 9 resi-
dents were more likely to recycle magazines. Corrugated card-
. board was recycled most often by residents of Precincts 2, 7,&
8. Overall, the participation in the curbside recycling program
was outstanding.
Brush and Yard Waste Disposal:
Seventy-four percent of the sample used the weekly call-in
brush pick-up program. Fifty-five percent of the households used
the service on an occasional basis, while fifteen percent report-
ed using the service monthly. Only four percent used the service
on a more frequent basis. 45-54 & over 65 year olds, retirees,
and residents of Precincts 3, 6 & 7 were more apt to use the
brush pick-up service on an occasional basis.
Sixty-six percent of the respondents said they used the
city's yard waste pick-Up program during the past year. Thirty-
five percent were occasional users, while fourteen percent used
it monthly. Eight percent left yard waste and leaves every other
. week, and nine percent did so on a weekly basis. Monthly users
were most often Clerical-Sales households and Precinct 3 resi-
dents. Precinct 9 residents were more apt to use the service on
an occasional basis.
The impact of a change from the free brush and yard waste
. pick-up service to a fee basis was ascertained. Residents were
told the City would charge $10.00 to $15.00 per stop for brush
pick-up and $1.00 per bag for yard waste pick-up. In addition, a
free drop-off .location for. this refuse would be provided. Only
eleven percent would exclusively use the pick~up service, par-
ticularly over 65 year .olds. Thirty-five percent would use the
free drop-off location, especially 18-24 year olds, Blue Collar
households, and residents of Precincts 7 & 8A. . Thirty....seven
percent would use a combination of both the pick-up service and
the free drop-off location, particularly 45-64 year olds, Cleri-
cal-Sales households~ and residents of Precincts 3, 4 & 6.
Fifteen percent were indifferent between the choices; over 65
year olds and Precinct 1 residents tended to dominate this cate-
gory. Charging fees, then, would result in a decline in the use
of these services.
Residents were asked their reaction to the city continuing
its free spring and Fall leaf pick-up program, discontinuing the
free pick-up of yard waste, and instituting a choice of a fee-
based yard waste pick-up service or a free drop-off location.
Under this new system, residents would be provided with a 90
gallon container for the weekly collection of yard waste and
charged $90.00 per season. Only three percent were "very likely"
to use this new service, Vlhile eleven percent were "somewhat
likely" to do so, especially Precinct 4 residents. Using stan-
. dard marketing projection techniques, 5.7 percent of the single
3
.
family homes in Hopkins would be expected to avail themselves of
the new service.
Processed Compost and Yard Waste Service: 4It
Residents were asked about their use of processed compost or
wood chips available from the City's Brush and Yard waste servic-
es. Eleven percent of the households had used these products
during the past year. Eighty-nine percent had not done so. This
program had a clientele somewhat greater than the norm.
Bulk Item Disposal:
Fourteen percent had used the City's fee-based Bulk Item
Pick-Up Service. Higher usership rates were posted by 45-54 year
olds. Twenty-six percent reported using the free Spring and Fall
Bulk Item Drop-Off Service during the past year. Higher partici-
pation rates were posted by 35-44 year olds arid residents of
Precincts 3 & 6; lower rates were evidenced by renters, 18-34
year olds, and Precinct 8B residents. The participation in the
Drop-Off Days was well above the suburban norm of eighteen per-
cent.
city Hall Hours:
Eighty-nine percent of the sample felt the current hours of
operation of the city Hall had been adequate for them and their 4It
households. Eleven percent disagreed. Retirees posted greater
levels of satisfaction, while renters and Precinct 1 residents
were more likely to be dissatisfied. In general, then, there was
no great need for changes in service hours.
If hours were expanded, saturday hours were the most popu-
lar. Nine percent were "very likely" to use evening-hours, while
twenty-four percent were "somewhat likely" to do so. Owner-
Manager-headed households and Precinct 1 residents tended to be
"very likely" to use these extended hours, while 18-24 & 35-44
year olds and residents of Precincts 3 & 8 tended to be "somewhat
likely." Over 45 year olds, retirees, Blue. Collar households,
and residents of Precincts 2, 4, 6 & 9 were least likely to use
these new hours. The most popular evenings were. Monday and
Thursday. Using standard market projections techniques, evening
hours would be used by fourteen percent of the single family home
households in the community.
Early morning hours were "very likely" to be used by three
percent and "somewhat likely" to be used by nine percent. Mon-
day, again, was a favorite choice. only Precinct 4 residents
were more "somewhat likely" to use these new hours. 18-24 & over
55 year olds and residents of Precincts 2 & 8B were generally not
interested in these extended hours. Standard marketing projec- 4It
4
, ,-'
.tit'#.iilM\fG;:;0~-";';;:IR!H;;"'; :";::;!,~,;!tt~~;~~itWlf;i'~:;l;iVG&\'i.':;;Sn1j\r;;,~\c;"';::'
.'
,
tions indicated that five percent of the households would avail
themselves of these extended hours~.
. If City Hall hours were expanded, Saturday mornings would be
. . "very likely" used by seventeen percent. Twenty-six percent
reported they would be "somewhat likely" to use them~ "Somewhat
likely" users tended to be 25-34 & 45-S4 year olds and residents
of Precincts 1 & 4. Over 55 year olds, retirees, and residents
of Precincts 2, 3, 7 &9 were least likely to use these new
hours. Standard marketing projections resulted in an estimated .
usage by twenty percent of the households in Hopkins.
Telephone Computer Hook-Up with City Hall:
Eleven percent of the sample said they were "very likely" to
use a computer access system for information on city services and
programs, especially 25-34 year olds and Precinct 4 residents.
Fifteen percent reported they would be "somewhat likely" to use-
the system. Singles, over 55 year olds, retirees, and residents
of Precincts 7 & 8B would not use this service. Standard market-
ing projections suggested that 12.3 percent of the households in
the community would use a computer-based system.
Summary and Conclusions:
Thirty-five percent of the sample reported they were at
. least "somewhat likely" to request a smaller refuse container, if
available, from the City. A sixty gallon container was popular
, with about one-half of this group, while almost forty percent
would opt for a thirty gallon container. A majority of these
households would switch to a smaller container if the savings
were about $4.00 monthly. Residents were indifferent, for the
most part, about the form the smaller container would take.
A solid .ninety-seven percent of the households currently
participated in the curbside pick-up of recyclables. Newspapers,
glass, plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and tin/steel cans were
the most recycled items. Satisfaction with the current recycling
program was clear.
Seventy-four percent of the sample had used the city's brush
piCk-Up service during the past year. Sixty-six percent had used
the City's yard waste and leaves pick-up program. If the City
charged for these services, only eleven percent would continue to
rely upon them exclusively. Thirty-five percent would use a free
drop-off location, while thirty-seven percent would use a combi-
nation of both approaches. There was very little interest in a
fee-based yard waste, collection system. run in tandem with a free
leaf piCk-Up service.
Participation in the disposal services offered for bulk
. items was above suburban norms. .Fourteen percent. had used the
5
~ - ~-----~-
.
,
city's fee-based Bulk Item Pick-Up Service during the past year,
while twenty-six percent had participated in the Spring or Fall
Bulk Item Drop-Off Service.
The vast majority of residents, eighty-nine percent, were .
satisfied with the current City Hall hours of operation. Howev-
er, if these hours were to be expanded, the most popular choices
would be Monday evenings and Saturday mornings. A computer
access service for information on city services and programs
would attract a potential audience of about 20.3 percent of the
households in the community. While a pilot test. of expanded
hours might be undertaken, these data suggest that the extended
hours would appeal to only a very limited group of home owners.
tI
.
6
jm:~~.i~-iiDlhm:i;;F:;:,.-;:'L I:.;:~:;'":;,::":.;,~;;ik~;;;~",:~'::~::,;;~_~~~}rrt';l:':;';>~f:d,~,"M::i,:,;~
,
.
CD
l.-
. 0
(/) 2' C\J
I.- 0
c: 0 5m
(Y) f-
W
Zoo
--=-c
~~
Zg. .
O:c
00
W~
(/)<3
~ ~
LI.. ;:
lJLJ ~ ,
a: :
a:
c
o
-
(1)
-
o
G)
C .
.
~-i '~~:ft~~W1~"~~~~2r:::s2;,~'~',';_::i: ~';::'~.;;~',; ;''''<;.~,"".
.
.
N
C/) (])
()
c:c NcU
(])o..
W ~~
:J (])
CI).c
Z C-l-'
::JO
-
~ ClJ
Z .5
O-a
<.)0
:c
. LL-'"+-
00
>-
~
W .- .
(!)O "0
-
-I
CI)
<( CD
0
~
c:c ~
0
CI)
0 CD
a:
c
I- 0
-
fh
-
C/) 0
CD
0
.
.
(JJ .
c
0
-
OJ CO <D
C) '-
0 :J
C/) (JJLO
C\l c
v ::>
a: rr
W
OW
Z Wz
rr-
..... (JJ ~~
~ .~ C
0 CI)~
- CD
OJ 0) c wZ
C)('l) ~co 0 0
Z-a 0
('l) C) ..q. 0
00 0
CO
o:C
"'I- ('l)
c: 0 I"- <D .
~ '-
:J
~ (JJ
C 0)
W~ ::> ('l)
-
...JO <( 0
..J ...... Ow
<(
...... 0'
<( 0
z ICI)
CO
~ ~ .~..:)
..... ---.JLL
OJ
C/) ..c -ti
3 ~O -
<D ..J
E ,;
0 -
(f) ('l) ---.J CD
0J (.)
...
0 ::J
~ 0
0
CD
...... II:
0
Z c
0
-
.0
-
(.)
CD
0 .
.
.~
.rn - _ - ')':'~IE~Uii;;;\I)~li;~f;:{'lj",,;~:;,~; "..;::,:i~'li';,::>':: -:':;;''';-'''''''~,i~Htt~,\1i,~t'!i\Il~~rJ1,;)\,,:)j; "~;l:':\'"
"C
CD
(I)
::I
· i
CD
OC ~
W ~
Z 0
- 0
~ ~
Z
CJ)Ow
(!JOe 0
Z .- C! ==
OC~ '(r) ~ Ii
- W a. .... Cl
~ :J ~ '5
. CJ)~o ~ I
t-CI)~ <h
CJ) 0 :+:=.
Ot-() ~
f~ 0 ~
~ W ~ ~
~ <h ~
Z 0 (I)
C CD
<C ~ ~
- C
o 0
:r: ~ z, 0;
o ~ 0 ~
o U)
('t) C\I
.~ .
'i
w.'
() Q)
Z E
(j)
W ::;
a: ...c 0
_0) N
CD
W I
CD
LLCI) ~
W c OJ
o:~
a.. 8-
ZI:
<(15
()~ 25 ·
+"" -+-'
.- ~
a:O or:
W 25N
I ~ c
~ C ill
I:;::; ~
~ _ ill~
<(::J :::: ~
o --
"0 .
~ c ~
_ ...J
vi
(f) e
~
o
(I)
CD
a::
c
o
(I)
-
o
CD
C
, ",!;_c,j'~'~0;'0v:}~;;iiji.i::~~;;Ji~miliIR~it&;;.ii;.;irjM!;~;,ii:Y;{i%i,,:<<i d:,;;~jl$;:;\',y";r,:' ''>
.
(J)
-l-'
ro
0..
0
:;:::::;0')
~
ro
~ D-
-l-'
0
<( z
a:
(!)UJ
o .~
a:-a
0..0
:c
. <.D~
. 0
~>>
..J..... .
.- "C
()'o (J) -
..J
. -l-'
ro 0
>-. 0.. CD
.- f'-- 0
.0 (j) a.-
U -l-' ~
~ 0
ro 0
W D- CD
ex:
c
.a: 0
-;
-
0
CD
0
.
---~ H"'-"iIIIlImIIiIlIIlmlh~~~~~~,~___
0
t\I
'I"-
~ ......... . ........... '" .,...............,......~............................... 0
0
'I"-
<( e
0:
0 <<J
<Xl '-
(!) 0)
0
C/J '-
0 a.
C c:
-- '-
cr: ~ 0 "0
a. <0 (I)
-
a. 0 ~
(.)
J: (I)
(!) ex:
0 I .
...... ~ .~W;;t~:
.,""~' . ~
0 ~'--*~
Z g;~~~~1
- >.
-J
+oJ 0
~ -- t\I
()
() -0
W 0 0 CI) CI) -
'- '- E C'I) ...J
c: c: (I) Cl) (I) (I) C'I)
0: CIj CIj - c: a. 0. CIj Q)
.... CIj
() 0 '- CIj CO 0 CD
.... N -
0 a. 0. .0 0 (J
E - CO ...
Cl) m tn "0 CI) '0 ::J
;:, (I) ~ '- 0
c: .... (.) CIj Cl) Cl) rcJ Q)
.- CI) .- ~ >< 0 CD
E .... '- Z cr
......... CI) ~
;:, r:: CO '-
- '- - '- c
<t: f- a. 0 0
0 -
''e Q)
-
(J
CD
a .
-
<
.
>-
-
:::t:.
<D
<D
~CX)
~
<D
..c D-
......
0 '-..... =>
c.. W I
f- Y
-
:c (j) 0
~ -
CJ) D-
c: CIJ "0 0 (j)
C <D W
W (f) IT
-- ::,:)LO ~
~ (f) )S
C/) ......
C- o
z w
:::> 0 :::t:. ~
~
. :c ~
<D
~ ..c
"+- .........q-
0
0 "- "0
<( >- :::t:. <D
..c <D (f)
~ ......LO <D ::,:)CO D-
c: c..- ~ C\J
~ 0 =>
-- :2 I
CJ () :2
y
0 0 <C
- IT
c: D- C)
c.. I 0 "'0
-
(j) IT ...J
=> D- (/)
CD
c IT 0
...
<D ;:,
...... OJ 0
4-
OLO ~
CD
(f)LO a:.
OJ c
<D
-.J 0
-
. (/)
()
CD
0
-
-
.
.
:c
C/) (J)
=> ~
!.-
/'V'" (J) ~
~ 0~ (J) ~
IV'\ ~ L L
UU !.-O ~~ ~~
(f) "'..) '+- .,-
" - C c=
W ~ ~
I-
C/)
~(IJ
~~ .
a.
00
cc:C
~ '+- '+-
o '+-
o
~>. 0.
...... 0
!.-
cc (3 ~~
O (J) ~OO ~
!.- E_
~ ~
LL. (J) 0 ~
w 0 ~
~ e
W ~
~ ~
a: ::;
(I)
~ g .
:c 0
()
;j~.t'f1ii~'~~}';i:';' i;:;~M;;,:;:,.j ;!",-, :/'k_;,.,..:>::j, ;j;'\-:ff~~~~tZlf~\'11~'~;:!i~,j':j\j;l:~;:,';P'(1f, ;C',"fB>::',-"'C::;};',,-,
- ----
.
.
W
I-
C/) -l-J G)
co "-
~ .c >- :Jl()
3:,>"" (/)
"-(l)C
(J),>"" G) ::)
E >
0
(J) OCL
C (f)
c: OI
c::~ OW
I[t
~ C-
O ~Cf)
-J: W:=J
. c::....... 0 YLL
- ~O
o 0 -
o r- f'- <(
~ ON -l-J<<:;:j-
<Cl()
LL. ....., Z -l-J
.- 0
WQ z
.
"'C
-
-l
.CJ (I)
cD
(,)
...
c:: ::J
0
0)
<C cD
a:.
c
::c 0
-
(I)
() (,)
cD
0
.
,,-"-.-
-----==. ",=,_c""-
~
.
CJ)
a.. .
-
:c
a
0
0 Cf)
OCfJ ~~
S .5
,,~
1-8-
CJ)I.
O'P-
a.. 0
~~ .-
o .- -
at)
lJ.. 00)
0 ZQ)
W -c
-
-I
CJ) 0
Q)
::> ()
....
;:,
0
tI)
Q)
a:
c:
0
-
tI) ,-
-
()
Q)
0 .-
_m
--
.
.
.
.
..J LL
<( LLW
en 00
1-
a(/) [L>
CC
OW'
o..c
CCCf)
en~ O~ 0'
- 0- zr--
00
. :c
~ '4-'
WO
t->
.......
- --
", () [LW
~ =:>0
..J 1-
y>
=> OCC -c
_W -
co -1
, [L Cf) -
fI)
,CD
(,)
oco ..
zm ::J
0
fI)
CD
a:
c
0
-
fI) ,
. -
(,)
CD
0
-
" _~__n_
- _~_n__
'.
.
(f)
cr:
~
(1)0
a::r: 0.,-
z.,-
:::JJ--C/J
om.s
:Ccr:~
cr:g.
--I~:c .
...Jo"l-
<:(u.o
:CO~
......,
>- --
>-00 C/JO)
1--<( ~a) .
-=-~ "'C
- ,
Oc ...J
-
CI)
cD
W u
...
Q ::J
0
CI)
<( cD
a:
c
0
-
CI)
-
u
cD .
C --
-
"::,"t':;: ~?:~,..~' ':':::,.- _'I "':,;1;":, ;"::~~L;"::;;;~.$~~~t~~4(~1f:i!f:",_"-~lij]~~i~~:;,i!1:;!)_,i:~':,,!!; ':.S;':Y'l ~Y '" '~""*) "~,, '-"",~" ,"'W'_'
.
.
. ........
<0 we/)
.r:
~O)>. CJ)O:
E Q5C') :J:J
o .> LLO
(J)
I
0
. 0
C/) Oz
0-
oz
0: = IO:
<( - 0
::> ...... 0) --.J :2
CIJ <(LOW
......
0.5 0 ~LL
z --.JO
J:-a
0
O:c WCJ)
. W\f-
- CJ)0:
<(
00 ........ ........ 0) ::J ::::J
crs .<( C') 0
Z >. .r: 6I
. ~ ..q-
...., <D
W(3 EN 00
0
(J) OZ .
I- "'C
Oz -
-J
>< IW -
r.tJ
-> CD
~W u
W ...
W ::J
0
~LL r.tJ
0 ~O CD
gee a:
c
......N 0
0 r.tJ
Z -
U
CD
a
.
.
'''--~-"''''~'~ -
.
CI)
cr w
.:::> CI) "l: C/J
O C ~N~
"- "l: '" LL
.l:! ~O
>-~ 8 .~
.A"_ 0
a 0 ~ ;!;
cc >. 1'! -.-J
. - ~~ w
.:::> "- ~ t'J ~
f-0 05 0 :J
< ~'" ~
CI) o~ -J
2 :
o
...
::J
o
0)
CD
CC
c:
o
-
0)
-
u
CD
o .
-
.
.
.
C/) w
C/) (/)
W 4.-1 =>
cu
-C. LL
OW $:LO
0)__ 0
c: E
0-- 0 0
<(-5. (f)
- 0
0 <( 0
a:::c ~~ I
-
W'+- 4.-1 ~
. .0
1-0 z w
...y
=>.~ -
~
0
0..(3 0 .
PC) "C
4.-IN -
~ ...J
0
Z C'I)
cD
0 "
...
::::J
0
() C'I)
cD
a:
c
0
C'I)
-
"
cD
a
.
.
~ ------~ ~- --~----~------
.
..
Decision Resources, Ltd. HOPKINS RESIDENTIAL STUDY
3128 Dean Court SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 July, 1993
. Hello, I'm of Decision Resources., Ltd., a polling firm
located in Minneapolis. We've been retained by the City of
Hopkins to speak with a random sample of residents about solid
waste disposal. ,As you may know, State law changes will require
all cities to re-evaluate their current methods of refuse. collec-
tion. This survey is being. taken because your city representa-
tives and staff are interested in your opinions and suggestions.
I want to assure you that all individual responses will be held
strictly confidential; only summaries of the entire sample will
be reported. (DO NOT PAUSE)
1. Do you reside in a single family YES (CONTINUE) . . . .. . .100%
home in the City of Hopkins? NO (THANK & TERMINATE).O%
2. Do you rent or own your current RENT. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .15%
residence? OWN . -. . . .- . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . 85%
3. How many individuals, including ONE. . . .- -._ . . . . . . . . ;. . . . -. .15%
yourself, live in this household? TWO _. . . .. . . ..- .. . . . .. . . .'. 35%
THREE. .. .- .; . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 17%
FOUR. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . ,. . . .. . 23%
FIVE. . . . . . . . .. . -. . . . . . . . . 7 %
SIX OR SEVEN...........3%
The city of Hopkins currently supplies 90 gallon carts for refuse
.. collection to .each single family home, duplex, and triplex at a
charge of $19.12 per month per cart. Included in this charge is
the weekly collection of the 90 gallon container, seasonal yard
waste pick-up services, and recycling collection. As you may
know, separate crews collect each of these materials.
4. How many refuse containers does ONE. . . . . . . . . . . -. '. . . . .- . -. 90%
your household currently have? TWO. . .. . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . '. . 8 %
THREE OR FOUR..........1%
FIVE OR MORE...........l%
5. Between pick-ups, do you generally GARAGE................23%
keep your container(s) in your OUTSIDE...............73%
garage, outside, or in some other OTHER PLACE......~.....2%
place? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
The typical garbage can available at Target or K-Mart Stores can
hold 35 gallons.
6. If they were available at a lower VERY LIKELY...........17%
monthly rate than the 90 gallon SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......18%
container rate, how likely would NOT TOO LIKELY........23%
you be to request a smaller refuse NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....39%
container -- very likely, somewhat DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3%
likely, not too likely, or not at
. all likely?
1
"
>-
IF "VERY LIKELY".OR "SOMEWHAT LIKELY," ASK:
7. Which of the following con- LESS THAN 20 GALLONS...8%
tainer sizes would best ac- 30 GALLONS............39% -,
commodate your refuse dis- SIXTY GALLONS.........48% .
posal needs -- less than 20 DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5%
gallons, 30 gallons, or 60
gallons?
8. How much lower would the monthly NOTHING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%
charge have to be for you to $1 . 00. . . -. . -. . . . . . . . . . . e- . 2 %
change to a smaller container? $ 2 -.0 0 . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . 2 %
Let's say, would you be willing to $3.00..................7%
change if your could save $_ $4.00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5%.
per month? (CHOOSE A RANDOM $ 5 . 00. . . . . . . .: . . . . . . . . .13%
STARTING POINT; MOVE UP OR DOWN $ 6 . 00 . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 2 %
DEPENDING ON ANSWER) How about $ 7 .' 0 o. .. . ..'. . . . . . .. .. . . . .. 1.7 %
$_ per month, would you change DON'T KNOW............16%
if you could save that amount? REFUSED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%
(REPEAT PROCESS)
9. If you chose the smaller can op- SAME HEIGHT/SMALLER...20%
tion, would you prefer using a CUTTING OFF PORTION...2l%
container that is the same height INDIFFERENT (VOL.)....41%
as your existing container and DON'T KNOW/REFUSED....18%
smaller in width OR prefer using
the current container adapted
through cutting off a portion of
the top or placing an insert in- '"
..
side? .
10. Does your household currently par- YES...................97%
ticipate in the curbside pickUp of NO.....................3%
recyclables? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O%
Which of the following materials do you recycle through the
curbside system?
YES NO DK/R
11. aluminum cans? 89% 11% 0%
12. tin/steel cans? 88% 12% 0%
13. plastic bottles? 91% 9% 0%
14. magazines? 66% ,.34% 0%
15. mixed paper? 79% 21% 0%
16. newspaper? 95% 5% 0%
17. corrugated cardboard? 65% 35% 1%
18. glass? 92% 8% 0%
19. Are there any other materials which you currently recycle
through the curbside pickup system?
NO ANSWER, 98%; YARD WASTE, 1%; SCATTERED, 1%.
As you may know, the City of Hopkins provides a weekly brush .
2
~\~t~fli~~\~:;i;;;lf@~l\:,;;:;,f.; C::;~:-~:::i~:JI It:;,:;~a~~_~~~\_:;W!AT~f;;\~~\Yf"~Z'hi~:;j ;:;':0:1:;'-. i5.:
---' ~__ __~~___~___n__
"
'"
pick-up throughout the community on a cali-in basis throughout
the year. Calls from households before 2:00 PM on Thursday will
be scheduled for pickup on Friday. Brush must be.placed on the
boulevard away from overhead wires and trees.
. 20. During the past year, has your YES/WEEKLY.............l%
household used the City's brush YES/EVERY OTH WEEK.....3%
pickup service? (IF "YES," ASK:) YES/MONTHLY...........15%
About how often do you use this YES/LESS OFTEN........55%
service during the season, weekly, NO....................26%
every other week, monthly, or less DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O%
often?
The City also collects yard waste and leaves on the same day as
regular refuse from mid-April to mid~October. For the remainder
of the Fall, the city continues to occasionally pickup.yard
waste until the first major snowfall.
21. During the past year, has your YES/WEEKLY.............9%
household used the City's yard YES/EVERY OTH WEEK.....8%
waste pickup service? (IF "YES," YES/MONTHLY...........14%
ASK: ) About how often do you use YES/LESS OFTEN........35%
this, service during the season, NO. . . . -.- . . . . . . . . . -e- . . . . . 34%
weekly, every other week, monthly, DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
or less often?
Suppose the City of Hopkins started charging $10 to $15 per stop
for brush pickup and $1. 00 per bag for yard waste piCkUp, but
also offered a free drop-off location for those refuse.
. 22. Would you be most likely to: OPTION A..............11%
A. pay for the pickup service.; OPTION B..............35%
B. use the free drop-off location; OPTION C..............37%
C. use a combination of both the INDIFFERENT (VOL.)....15%
pickup service and the free DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....3%
drop-off location.
Suppose the City of Hopkins continued its free Spring and Fall
leaf pickup program, but decided to discontinue the free pickup
of yard waste. Instead citizens could pay for the pickup service
of yard waste or bring them to a free drop-off location. Under
this new system....
23. If a 90 gallon container, identi- VERY LIKELY............3%
cal to your existing refuse con- SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......11%
tainer, were available for the NOT TOO LIKELY........27%
,weekly collection of yard waste NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....54%
from May through September at a DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....5%
cost of $50.00 per season, how
likely would you be to use this
service -- very likely, somewhat
likely, not too likely, or not at
all likely?
. Processed compost or wood chips are available from the City's
3
-
.
'"
Brush and Yard Waste services.
24. Has your household used any of the YES...................11%
processed compost or wood chips NO. . . . ';. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . 89%
during the past year available DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O% .
from the city of Hopkins?
The City of Hopkins provides a special Bulk Item Pickup Service
by appointment. Calls from households before 2:00 PM on Wednes-
day will be scheduled for pickup on Thursday. Households are
charged $15.00 per bulk item and/or each 3/4 cubic yard of bagged
or boxed loose volume material.
25. During the past year, has your YES. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-4 %
household used the City's Bulk NO. .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 86%
Item Pickup Service? DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O%
The City also provides a Spring and Fall Bulk Item. Drop-Off
Service for residents. This is a twice-yearly three-day event
and is free to all Hopkins residents.
26. During the past year, has your YES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 26%
household participated in the NO. . . " . . . . . . . e_ . . . . . . . . 74%
Spring or Fall Bulk Item Drop-Off DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O%
service?
On another topic....
City Hall office hours are 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through --
Friday. The Police Department, however, is open twenty-four .
hours per day, while the Public Works Depart~ent office hours are
from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM weekdays.
27. In general, have these hours of YES. . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. .. . . . . 89%
operation been adequate for you NO. . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . 11 %
and members of your household to DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....O%
conduct business with the city?
How likely would you be to use any of the following extended '
hours of operations if they were offere~ by the City -- would you
be very likely to use them, somewhat likely, not too likely, or
not at all likely?
28. First, evening hours? VERY LIKELY............9%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......24%
NOT TOO LIKELY........28%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....38%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....1%
IF "VERY LIKELY," ASK:
29. Is there a particular evening of the week which would
be best for you?
NO ANSWER-NONE, 27%; MONDAY, 35%; TUESDAY, 8%; WEDNES-
DAY, 4%; THURSDAY, 15%; SCATTERED, 12%. .
4
:~l1t\ti~i:;1\W;"'Tm~Y~'iI t_ -- ,':',,".',;"::;:~_;;;r~~~~i\>~il!,b0~~~lf~:)j\:C,;;1S,{;1~\1;;;,I:~}.',il;;}",;, "':;~,;J, -",'--";'"
.
...
30. Early morning hours? VERYLIKELY............3%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY........9%
NOT TOO LIKELY........29%
. NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....57%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
IF "VERY LIKELY," .ASK:
31. Is there a particular morning of. the week which would
be best for you?
NO ANSWER-NONE, 67%; MONDAY, 22%; SCATTERED, 11%.
32. saturday mornings? VERY LIKELY...........17%
SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......26%
NOT TOO LIKELY........14%
NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....40%
DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
33. If it were available through a VERY .LIKELY.......... .11%
telephone hook-up with a personal SOMEWHAT LIKELY.......15%
computer, how likely would you be NOT TOO LIKELY.........23%
to use.. a computer access system NOT AT ALL LIKELY.....49%
for information on city services DON'T KNOW/REFUSED.....2%
and programs -- very likely, some-
what likely, not too likely, or
not at all likely?
. Now, just two more questions for demographic purposes....
34. What is your age, please? Does it 18-24 YEARS OLD........6%
lie between.... . 25-34 YEARS OLD.......21%
35-44 YEARS OLD.......28%
45-54 YEARS OLD.......14%
55-64 YEARS OLD........9%
65 AND OVER...........22%
35. What is your occupation and, if applicable, the occupation
of your spouse or partner? (CODED AS HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD)
NO ANSWER, 2%; PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL, 17%; OWNER-MANAGER,
24%; CLERICAL-SALES, 14%; BLUE COLLAR, 17%; RETIRED, 22%;
SCATTERED, 4%.
Thank you very much for your time. Good-bye.
36. Gender. (BY OBSERVATION) MALE. _. . . . . . . . -.- . . -. . . . . .45-%
FEMALE. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 55%
37. Region of city. NORTH. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 54%
SOUTH....... ......... .46%
.
5
.
'"
,
.
October 4, 1993
John Chell
Director, Office of Waste Management
1350 Energy Lane, suite 201
st. Paul, MN 55108
Dear Mr. Chell:
Attached is a revised copy of the Time Line which was included with
our September 10th letter to you requesting a postponement of the
effective date for implementing section 115A.9301 Solid Waste
Collection; Volume or Weight based Pricing. We requested a one year
postponement in our original letter to allow us the maximum time to
comply with this legislation. Although our original time line showed
. a shorter implementation period we presented that as a "best case
scenario". Because unforeseen delays could occur we are requesting
postponement . until January 1, 1995. We have every intention of
complying before January 1, 1995 if all elements of the change over go
smoothly.
The following time .line represents a "worst case scenario" and rather
than receive a six month postponement from your office based on our
original time line, we have revised our time line as follows and
request a one year postponement;
TIME LINE
July 30 - August 6, 1993 Survey Conducted
September 7, 1993 Approval of new truck
purchase by Council
September 23, 1993 Hennepin County Board meeting
regarding Ordinance 15
.' October 1, 1993 Retrofitted truck completed
"
'//11> 't _~
October 4, 1993
Page 2
October 15 - .
December 30, 1993 Initial container tests completed
on Retrofitted truck
October 15 -
December 30, 1993 Evaluation by Finance of
pricing structure for volume
based containers
January 30, 1994 New volume based pricing
system offered to residents
by'postcard system. A,post card
will be sent to all refuse
customers asking them to return
the card if they desire a
smaller container. The card need
not be returned if no change is
desired.
March 1, 1994 New refuse truck in service
April 30, 1994 container tests completed on
new truck
--
April 30, 1994 container bids let -
.
or May 30, 1994
May 20, 1994 container bids opened - 60 days to
or June 20, 1994 review and test containers bid
July 30, 1994 Award of container bid
August 15-30, 1994 containers received
September 15 -
October 15, 1994 Container Change over period
based on postcard requests
returned.
November 1, 1994 -
December 30, 1994 Evaluation period - Some changes
may be required for customers thqt
downsize containers '
Sincerely,
Charles D. Redepenning, '.
Mayor
IIIIliII ." . "'-;
-'IM--". - - - _ ~ ~~j~t~:~~1\fhiL;:~;~.,~.~-~:~,~::i~'C4i;"":~~~";;~1'1t~;:~~k\\f::!tjl\tgt1:;:ilr:n;}?:'j;!,?:,,: ;1;;,< ,;