2015_0914_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Me�nber Seigler suggesting posting this draft document as is and if interest was generated, efforts could then be taken to improve it; otherwise, no further efforts were needed. Since the suggested revisions were not major, Member Cihacek noted the difficulty in changing a document once posted versus before. Member Cihacek opined that whatever was posted needed to be the final tool or staff time would only be increased accardingly. Member Seigler sought clarification from staff as to whether they wanted changes now or for individual members to provide them to staff for presentation to the City Council for the joint meeting. Mr. Culver clarified that it was staffls intent to bring forward a consensus of the PWETC with minor modifications as indicated as part of tonight's discussion; and then present the revised draft document at the June 22 joint meeting. If tbe consensus of the PWETC was for Member Wozniak and Ramsey County staff to offer some suggestions, Mr. Culver offered to redraft the document, and simply legalize that he could provide as a revised document to the PWETC for their feedback prior to presentation to the City Council. However, if the PWETC found major issues, Mr. Culver suggested presentation to the City Council be delayed to allow further review and consideration before making a recommendation. Member Wozniak encouraged all PWETC members to provide suggestions, and clarified that it was not his intent to come at this from the perspective as an employee of Ramsey County; but only offered to consult with his colleague on preferable communication styles. Mr. Culver expressed staff's appreciation of any revised language; offering to incorporate them into a modified document; redistributing that to the PWETC before the June 22, 2015 joint meeting. In order to meet pre-packet deadlines for distribution, Mr. Culver advised that he would need that information by June 9, 2015 for final PWEC comments. Consensus of the PWETC was for staff to proceed as noted.