Laserfiche WebLink
Member Felice observed that if no other municipalities were offering such a <br /> program, new residents may not be looking for such a service, or even thinking <br /> about using the service based on past experience. <br /> Public Comment <br /> Kathy Clink, 535 Ryan Avenue <br /> As a current user, Ms. Clink spoke in support of the program, even though she <br /> wasn't sure the City should spend $350,000 on the program to update equipment. <br /> Ms. Clink stated that when she mentions the Roseville program to residents in <br /> other communities, they're impressed with such a service being available. Ms. <br /> Clink opined that, if you had a small property in Roseville, it probably wouldn't <br /> be cost-effective to pay a fee to have the leaves picked up by the City, but for <br /> those with larger lots choosing to use the program, it was appreciated. <br /> Chair Stenlund asked staff to determine if the primary users of the program were <br /> Roseville's elderly residents; and if so, if there may be a way to offer the service <br /> through a privatized service outside the City. Chair Stenlund further questioned if <br /> there was perhaps a correlation between mulching mowers and the decline in <br /> participants, or if it was simply based on the cost to homeowners for the <br /> previously no-cost program. <br /> Mr. Schwartz noted that there were many alternative options now available for <br /> residents, including backyard composting, mulching mowers, free access to the <br /> recycling center and/or Ramsey County yard waste sites, or curbside pickup by <br /> private trash haulers, even though some haulers may charge a fee for that service. <br /> Member Felice suggested interesting civic or service organizations in providing a <br /> leaf raking service versus offering car washes as a way to raise money. <br /> Member Lenz suggested staff running the GIS program to determine ages of <br /> users; and if senior citizens were predominantly using the program, it may suggest <br /> a different approach since they would represent a different market and need and <br /> eliminating the program may significantly impact their quality of life. <br /> Member Seigler noted that 92% of residents were already using other options; and <br /> his personal observation in his neighborhood was that only those with larger lots <br /> used the program which he attributed to an economy of scale issue in the current <br /> cost. <br /> At the request of Chair Stenlund to provide staffs recommendation, Mr. Schwartz <br /> advised that the program had a high impact on existing resources of the <br /> department, making it difficult to contract out a program of this magnitude, <br /> particularly with the specialty equipment required. Given the alternatives <br /> currently available for residents, Mr. Schwartz stated that staffs recommendation <br /> would be to discontinue the program and reallocate staff resources in other areas <br /> where additional time was needed. <br /> Page 5 of 17 <br />