CC_Minutes_2016_1017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 17, 2016 Page 14 Ms. Major clarified that there was no magic bullet, with many residents who didn’t understand bureaucracies, with wariness culturally, or other barrier that didn’t provide an off-the-shelf solution that proved useful. Again, Ms. Major opined that what worked best when dealing in relationships was to start with things already happening. In Roseville for instance, Ms. Major referenced the work by the City’s Human Rights Commission with the Karen community, and the first step to seek their input on what worked well and then building on that. Ms. Major noted in the past, they’ve found it helpful to orient exercises with schools and minors – but recognizing the sensitivity of reaching into that area – and use those existing areas to feed the plan in a meaningful way to shape popula- tions going forward. Ms. Major opined that the goal is to use build on those rela- tionships and customize them to ensure they don’t end after the plan update pro- cess, but that they continue. To build on that, Ms. Purdu provided some examples of things she’d used suc- cessfully in other areas, including Early Education classes, neighborhood walking tours allowing those in an immediate area to point out positives and negatives in their neighborhood and build interaction on their turf, and allow them to give their input. Ms. Purdu reiterated that the goal was to make it easy for Roseville resi- dents, not necessarily their firm. Councilmember Laliberte asked if the team would use in-house or outside con- sultants for required engineering work as part of the plan update. Ms. Purdu clarified that in-house staff would be used for expertise between the firms of WSB and LBH (e.g. transportation analyses) for engineering needs with that cost included in their proposal. In reading their proposal, Councilmember McGehee asked how their firm had elected to divide the focus into the four specific areas identified in the slide presentation (issues map) and how they arrived at those areas. Ms. Purdu advised that they had started with discussions with Ms. Major based on her past work in Roseville as she pointed out areas she was aware of; and then referencing the existing comprehensive plan for ideas, particularly the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area that was well-known, even though it represented a challenging but successful model. Ms. Purdu noted that not all challenges are problems, but sometimes examples of good things happening (e.g. Rosedale Cen- ter and Har Mar Mall). As part of the process in looking at areas of interest, whether good or bad, Mr. Gromberg addressed opportunities and challenges, opining they could have picked out ten other sites in the city as well. However, he identified these select- ed areas in the presentation as areas that resonated with the community and the