Laserfiche WebLink
• Fair and competitive prices; and <br /> • Top-quality service. <br /> Both County Boards, in adopting the resolutions to commence the study, clearly <br /> stated that there were no predetermined decisions, and that an important part of the <br /> study was public input. As a result, staff designed a very thorough public engagement <br /> process to cover the Counties broadly and to seek input in a variety of ways. <br /> Public collection has a history of being controversial, and the review of case studies <br /> from Minnesota and elsewhere showed that to get balanced input would be a <br /> challenge. The waste industry, understandably, has strong concerns about government <br /> involvement in collection, and has a history of engaging customers to advocate for the <br /> industry position. Because of this, and to get meaningful input for the County Boards <br /> the staff put significant effort into gathering input. The public engagement process is <br /> summarized beginning on page 19 of the Report, and in several appendices. <br /> The public engagement process occurred in two phases. The first phase was from <br /> August 2001 through January 2002, and the second was during February and March <br /> 2002.The approach used was to engage a variety of audiences in various ways to <br /> provide information and gather meaningful input. In order to do this a variety of tools <br /> were developed to explain solid waste issues and to gather input. <br /> Managing this input was a huge task. Each voice mail, email and comment card was <br /> listened to, recorded and categorized. Great care was taken to respect the time the <br /> sender took to provide comments. From the public input, several contact lists were <br /> developed for people that requested feedback and follow-up. These people then <br /> received issues of Collection Connection when they were released. <br /> The report summarizes, in detail, the input received from municipalities, businesses, <br /> organizations, the general public, and the waste industry. <br /> Criteria for Evaluation of Public Collection and Alternatives <br /> This report discusses public collection, as well as several alternatives that have been <br /> proposed. Several criteria have been developed for the analysis. For each criterion a <br /> numerical scale of 1 -- 4 has been developed, with a score of 1 being most desired, <br /> and a score of 4 being least desired. The categories for ranking are: <br /> a To what extent does the option support the goals? <br /> b Ease of administration and cost of administration; <br /> c Ease of assuring compliance; <br /> d Ease of explaining to the public; and <br /> e. Public acceptance. <br /> Analysis <br /> While the principal purpose of this study was to evaluate public collection, there were <br /> three other options that arose during the study that were analyzed. The four options <br /> considered are listed below. Each option is described, analyzed, ranked according to <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br />