My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Citizens Waste Management Advisory and City Response
Roseville
>
Studies, Task Forces, Special Committees, Reports
>
1986 Residential Waste Management Alternatives Study
>
Citizens Waste Management Advisory and City Response
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 1:18:11 PM
Creation date
5/24/2012 11:08:45 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
December 4, 1990 <br />TO: Steve Sarkozy, City Manager <br />Steve North, Assistant City Manager <br />FROM: Kathleen Miller, Administrative Intern <br />SU&7ECT: YARD WASTE REPORT <br />�.� � �..,� <br />;r�, <br />,�,�`�.,� • <br />�.�:H__ . r - <br />�.,�5 .� <br />�' �. i...@..... <br />-'"�'�,. �� �0.� y ci <br />� ,�a> .� « <br />� �— a <br />The Waste Management Advisory Committee met bi-weekly, sometimes <br />weekly, in the past six months to examine and report its �i.ndings <br />on yard waste management. These efforts are presented in their <br />most recent report entitled Residential Yard Waste Report. <br />The purpose of this report is to provide a response to the Com-- <br />mittee's Conclusions and Recommendations a.ncluded in that repart. <br />BACKGROUND <br />Responding tQ the dwindling availability of landfill space, the <br />1988 Minnesota State Legislature enacted a law xegulating the <br />disposal of yard wastes. The law bans the disposal of yard wastes <br />in landfills or in resource recovery facilities. In short, yard <br />wastes (which include leaves, grass clippings, garden wastes, <br />weeds, and prunings) may no longer be mixed with other garbage. <br />Haulers may continue to collect yard waste but must collect it <br />separately, resulting in an additional cost for the consumer. <br />Residents may continue ta place brush and other woody materials <br />in with their garbage. However, these new restrictions have <br />resu].ted in a cumbersome, and often confusing, system of deaiing <br />with yard wastes. <br />METHODOLOGY <br />The Committee should be commended for the thoroughness of its <br />report, yet the twenty-five recommendations are quite exhaustive. <br />A compZete evaluation of each couid result in a sizable report. <br />The recdmmendations have, therefore, been compiled inta the <br />following four categories to faciiitate analysis and found in <br />Table I at the end of this report. <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />0 <br />Recommending implementation, <br />Recommending implementation with modifications, <br />Recommending further study, <br />Recommending against implementation. <br />To deterznine the appropriate category, each recommendation will <br />be evaluated using the following criteri�, where appropriate: <br />C <br />L <br />U <br />Is there a demonstrated need for this recommended <br />action? <br />Is the recommended actian environmentally sound? <br />Does the recommended action reflect the results of <br />the Qua].ity of Life Survey? <br />� � <br />�=°°'""_ <br />"..�--�- � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.