2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 15 Boguszewski clarified that he intended that PC representation to be involved whether in 637 interviews or at focus groups or whatever form the community engagement took. 638 Ms. Major duly noted that, and asked that the PC provide guidance to the team on 639 suggested tools related to desired input. 640 Chair Boguszewski note other connections available (e.g. school districts) and diverse 641 community groups that may require knowing someone to make that initial contact. 642 Ms. Collins agreed, but noted that the city already had some existing relationships to tap 643 into and/or that had been developed already (e.g. Police Department and city staff). 644 Member Kimble noted the request for feedback from the PC to the WSB team on tools. 645 Member Gitzen asked WSB to differentiate between the tools proposed and those 646 identified as “potential tools” on the chart. 647 Ms. Perdu reiterated the explanation of Ms. Major that certain tools were included in the 648 WSB proposal, while the PC may choose to swap out some of those proposed with 649 some of those identified as “potential tools.” 650 Ms. Major concurred, advising that she’d used all of the identified tools and more, but 651 clarified that those identified as “potential tools” were not part of the WSB proposal, but 652 were intended to alert the PC of their availability and existence. 653 CEC Commissioner Tomlinson expressed appreciation for the clarification of those items 654 included in the current proposal and those available but not yet included. 655 Member Kimble stated her appreciation of the different tools available and identified, and 656 suggested WSB provide guidance on how those tools may best match with specific 657 groups, depending on their varying demographics, learning curves or engagement. For 658 instance, for younger groups, Member Kimble suggested a simpler, shorter and more 659 energetic approach may be better than a lecture-type format. Rather than a more 660 detailed “elevator speech,” Member Kimble suggested development of a simple mission 661 statement, perhaps only one line, for immediate understanding by a focus or stakeholder 662 group. Member Kimble suggested focusing on brand and energy, while ensuring the tool 663 matches the group, including the venue, time of day and other aspects for engagement. 664 Ms. Major noted that the list included any and all options, including additional ideas 665 generated by the PC tonight specific to community engagement. Ms. Major stated that 666 matching tools with groups was exactly what feedback and input they were hoping to 667 receive from the PC, defining what specific tools would work best for each group but 668 without having a meeting with each organization or an event associated with each 669 engagement opportunity. Ms. Major noted the intent to try to cluster opportunities 670 whether through a public open house, or other tools targeted to one-on-one 671 opportunities, or holding focus groups with high school students versus the business 672 community. With that input from the PC, Ms. Major noted the need to facilitate those 673 different energies, venues and discussions and after receiving that feedback, advised 674 that she would develop a more refined list of groups and tools for the PC’s approval. 675 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Major advised that the PC would provide their 676 input at each and every meeting of the PC for each group brought to the table that were 677 considered to have validity for receiving their input on the comprehensive plan. 678 Member Murphy noted the need to involve those Roseville residents involved in the 679 Mounds View School District (40% of Roseville’s households) as well as those in the 680 Roseville School District; and asked how WSB intended to address that. 681