Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br />� , <br />G�S� ���:.�.�F�=`� <br />o add equipment and personnel, or <br />o contract with private haulers for part of the service. <br />The cost of providing the current service is not a.nexpensive; � <br />Z989's costs were $7b,371.34. If this recommendation is imple- ���"�� <br />mented, the cost will increase by an estimated $13,Op0 (1989 �` !-' <br />figures) plus the cost of a Snper Vac at $20,000 to $25,000. /�.���;`�� <br />While the Quality of Life Survey indicates strong community <br />support for this program, it does not favor raising taxes in <br />arder to �mprove the quality of the program. Therefore, zt is <br />not recammended that staff implement this recommendation at this <br />time, but concentrate its efforts on resolving the following <br />Committee recommendation. <br />Recomntendation 2: Determine the most cost effective way to <br />continue the Leaf Collection Proqram. <br />Response: [implement] While the c�rrent Leaf Collection Program <br />is popular with Roseville residents, it is nat without its <br />critics. The Puhlic Works staff is constantly faced w.ith <br />challenges to its schedule. Failure to keep on schedule results <br />in unhappy resi-dents who have exerted considerable effort raking <br />leaves and expect them to be collected in a timely fashiox�. <br />The program needs improvement, yet to da so would resuit in con- <br />siderable costs to the City. It is, therefore, impoxtant that <br />staff be directed to look at alternate means of providing this <br />sez-vice. Analysis should include the following: <br />o Continue the Leaf Collection Program as is. <br />o Continue the Leaf Collection Program, but contx-act out a <br />portion o� the service. <br />o Continue the Leaf Coliection Program, but bill partici- <br />pating residents for the service. <br />o Continue the Leaf Collection Program, but purchase addi- <br />tional equ.ipmen� and add staff to inake the program more � <br />efficient. - ,���,��� <br />� �..._.. . � <br />o Drop the service, and require residents to be responsible <br />for the dispasal of leaves. <br />o Contract the entire service out to independent haulers. <br />The implication of each of these alternatives could have monu- �•-�- <br />mental monetary repezcussions. It is, thexefore, recommen'c�ed that <br />sta car u y scru�'in ze�he available options. <br />Recommendation 3: Oaly those residents uszag leaf collection <br />services shouid pay for them. <br />