Laserfiche WebLink
May 4, 2009 (E-Mail Comment from Mark Gamm, Dodge County EQ Director) <br />Hi Jeffrey. Here are my comments from very quick review of Draft Report. <br />Generally like the format and it seems to answer the right questions with a couple of exceptions: <br />1. Felt like the "Introduction" set-up a good question that was never answered... why is the rest <br />of the country different than Minnesota in that over 70% of the US cities surveyed have <br />organized collection while only 30% of MN cities are organized? Even our likable neighbor, <br />Iowa, has 85% of cities organized. I think a part of the report should address this question. <br />2. It feels like the vast amount of data presented is lopsided toward larger cities and suburbs of <br />metropolitan area. As a result, smaller cities in greater MN may not find the report very relevant. <br />I believe there are many examples of small cities that have organized collection (in some form) <br />that may have data relevant to other small cities in MN. From my experience, small cities are <br />interested in organizing collection for the same reasons larger cities are but may have different <br />dynamics that could make organizing easier than in larger cities. It seems like this should be <br />addressed somehow in the report. <br />Thanks, <br />Mark <br />X:\MS\IE\2008\08M081\10000 reports\Final Appendices\Appendix I1 -Public Comments.doc <br />