Laserfiche WebLink
E <br />o Does the recommended action make sense economically? <br />o Is there a better alternative? <br />o Does the recammended action reduce yard waste and <br />increase the generator's awareness of the associated <br />costs? <br />o Does the recammended action reduce the element of <br />confusion for the resident? <br />CONTENTS OF REPQRT <br />This report includes cansiderable input from the Public Works, <br />Personnel, and Parks and Recreation Departmerlts, as well as dis- <br />cussions with several staff inembers from Ramsey County and other <br />cammunities. It also takes into consideration the recent Quality <br />of Life Survey and the basic philosophy shared by Ramsey County <br />and the Metropolitan Council to reduce waste and increase the <br />individual generator's awareness of associated costs. U- <br />Included for your review are: <br />o The Committee's recommendations, <br />o Staff response and recommendation, <br />o A summarizing table, <br />o An appendix which contains additional information to assist J� <br />you in your analysis. , <br />EVALUATION <br />Genexal PoZicY: <br />Recommendation 1: Rosevilie shoul.d resume its leadexship role in <br />yard waste manaqement by implementing the recommendations of this <br />repvrt. <br />Response: [implement with modification] The City is taking the <br />necessaxy steps to implement the Committee's recommendatians by: <br />Q Drafting this response to the recommendations, ��:. �'� ��� <br />� �,� � ; �.�. <br />o Presenting this response to the Committee, ��='���f� ��� <br />o Providing the City Council with this response to review <br />at an upcaming work session. <br />The City has every intention of seriously reviewing each recom- <br />mendation and is anxious to implement those that are workable. <br />Recommendation 2: Roseville shouid expiore the Metropoiitan <br />Couacil�s Capital Assistance and Demonstratian Grants Proqram for <br />funds for ne�r equipment and demonstration projects. <br />