2015-04-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

80 advised that staff anticipated a discussion with the City Council at their April 81 Work session and was seeking input from the PWETC before that time. 82 83 Mr. Schwartz reviewed the background of this program since it was initiated in 84 the 1970 subsequent to the state-wide burning ban, and noted that Roseville was 85 one of the only cities in the metropolitan area offering such a service. Mr. 86 Schwartz further noted the change to a fee-based service in 1998, dramatically 87 reducing annual participation from approximately 4,500 participants prior to that 88 time. The City Council has adopted a 2015 fee of $55 per property to fully cover 89 the cost of the program, Mr. Schwartz advised that drop in registrations has 90 occurred at the same time we are seeing an incre esidential use of the City's 91 recycling site. 92 93 Mr. Schwartz noted that among the challenges with aosts of the program 94 include weather due to short window available for the es, typically three 95 weeks, while requiring having sufficient resources available to stay on schedule. 96 Mr. Schwartz advised that this requires most of the street division staff in addition 97 to temporary labor for clean-up raking; and in some years making it difficult to 98 meet customer expectations based on those challenges. 99 100 Regarding the decline in participants from 2000 to 2014, Mr. Schwartz reported 101 that it had been reduced from 2,313 registered users to 694 users. Mr. Schwartz 102 noted that there was an impact to the City's stormwater system if leaves are not 103 disposed of properly, but advised that residents were finding alternatives to the 104 City's leaf pickup program. 105 106 Mr. Schwartz advised that total program costs for 2014 were $88,696 with 694 107 participants, or approximately 7% of the City's single-family residents; with 108 trequired 9,325 in user fees collected. For 2014, Mr. Schwartz advised that the total cost 109 a significant storm utility subsidy due to bad weather. 110 111scussion included the cost of the program defined by the number of 112 participants, as well as administrative and preparation costs, and the need to 113 increase fees as the number of users decreases to cover actual costs of the 114 program (e.g. equipment). 115 116 Further discussion included City Code violation for leaves raked onto City streets; 117 whether or not more leaves ended up in the wastewater system from leaving them 118 on boulevards while waiting for pickup and depending on weather conditions. 119 120 At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff had not yet 121 determined the demographics (e.g. elderly residents) using the program and 122 whether or not they would be significantly impacted if the program were 123 eliminated. Mr. Schwartz did advise that staff had observed that typical smaller 124 and less treed lots did not use the program as much as those larger area lots with 125 more trees. Page 3 of 17