Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br />Response A. [requires further study] This may be a worthwhile <br />project for service organizations, but implementation of this type <br />of service by the City wouid require further study_ <br />Response B. [�ot recommended] The Public Works Directar advises <br />that a recammendation of this magnitude might be ill advised for <br />the following reasons: <br />o the City would incur a tremendous liability, <br />o the program would be extremely costly for tax purposes, <br />yet serve anly a select few, <br />o the time required for staff implementation would be costly, <br />o this service is available through the private sector. <br />it is, therefore, recommended that th�s recommendation not be <br />implemented at this time. <br />Response C. [implement with modification] The Public Works <br />Director feels that this service should not be expanded beyond <br />what the City is currently doing. Upon request, City crews will <br />leave usable limbs for firewood. The City could make an effort <br />ta better advertise this policy using the City Newsletter, cable, <br />and press releases. <br />Allowing residents to cut firewood on City property would create <br />an unacceptable liab�lity risk for the City. It is, therefore, <br />recommended that this recommendation be modified to informing the <br />residents of the curxent program. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The Committee's Yard Waste Report has provided a great deal of <br />information and many worthwhile recommendations for managing yard <br />waste in Roseville. This report is intended to provide an <br />initial respdnse to the Committee's r-ecommendations. <br />Clearly, the Committee's task was not easy. zts efforts have <br />resulted in a co�prehensive report and provides the City Council <br />with an opportunity to evaluate and develop a meaningful yaxd <br />waste policy for the City of Roseville. <br />Some of the Committee's recommendations overlap; analysis of one <br />in isolation of the others becomes problematic. Some are simple, <br />yet others are muZtidimenszonal, but all are insightful and <br />require staff consideration. <br />Staff's albeit brief ana�ys�s has resulted in recommending that: <br />12 - be implemented <br />8- be implemented with modifications <br />9- be r�ferred for further study, and <br />2- have been recommended against. <br />Implementing all of the Committee's recommendations would result <br />in considerable costs; therefore, difficult choices must be made. <br />