2017-01-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 16 Ms. Major clarified that theschool districts had two different roles: one in the planning 682 process with administration staff and then one based on student experience with 683 Roseville (e.g. leadership). 684 Chair Boguszewski agreed that the Mounds View School District needed to help inform 685 the comprehensive plan update; with Ms. Major duly noting that and adding them to the 686 draft list. 687 While wanting to ensure all viable groups were represented in the process, on the flip 688 side Chair Boguszewski also noted the need to make sure there was an honest to 689 goodness reason for seeking and obtaining their input (e.g. traffic needs as part of 690 facility proposals) and rationale as to the involvement of each stakeholder group. 691 CEC Commissioner Sparby noted that he hadn’t observed how those willing or seeking 692 to be engaged in the process could become involved, as he didn’t notice any specific 693 criteria or “how to” process.Member Sparby suggested that criteria needed to be clearly 694 and transparently determined and then the avenues to become involved or engagedin 695 the process identified and streamlined within the overall process (e.g. who to call, what 696 body to contact –whether a member of the City Council, PC or the consultant team). 697 Ms. Major agreed that was an important aspect and advised that the team was hoping 698 for assistance from the CEC for that step.While so far this initial step seems to be a 699 one-way street, Ms. Major agreed that a two-way street and process was needed: “How 700 do I as a Roseville resident own the plan and process?” 701 Chair Boguszewski notedthat, as is true with any group, those most vocal are not 702 necessarily the most representative of the group beyond their own personal interests. 703 Ms. Major noted the use of the tools to determine which organizations or groups were 704 more invitation-based and those more volunteer-based. 705 As an example, Ms. Collins noted the significant amount of outreach the Police 706 Department had done with their soccer program, with students frequently speaking on 707 behalf of their family, due to their English language skills compared to their elders and 708 therefore frequently representing those family groups and dynamics.Ms. Collins advised 709 that the team may be hearing that input from schools as well as from those Roseville 710 families. 711 Chair Boguszewski suggested several area offices(e.g. Roseville Office of Immigration) 712 that served a role in area school districts, and suggested they may be able to provide 713 leader names within various race communities.In his review of this, Chair Boguszewski 714 noted that not all under-represented groups were listed specifically; and asked if that 715 was intentional to obtain PC feedback to add to the list. 716 Ms. Major advised that this was absolutely the reason the list wasn’t all-inclusive, 717 knowing the PC and staff knew its community best and would and should dictate that list 718 for WSB to flesh out in more detail with guidance from the PC and city staff. 719 Noting the website sign-up area for other activities, Member Bull suggested a point of 720 context for email or text notices of community engagement events or activities to make it 721 easier for residents and stakeholders to become involved.In the tools listed, Member 722 Bull noted that use of focus groups and panel discussions were both listed as “potential 723 tools.”From his personal perspective, Member Bull stated that he found focus groups 724 narrow versus broader panel discussions and their respective audiences.Therefore, 725 Member Bull suggested the team take a look at the mix of those tools in the community 726