2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 8 Ms. Perdu advised that their firm had a good library for comparison and duly noted Chair 310 Boguszewski’s request for three comparables providing different levels of scope. 311 Ms. Major reiterated that tonight’s goal is to dig deeper into the written plan to inform 312 their team of possible next steps. Ms. Major noted that part of that determination will be 313 what to understand from those people being reached through any given engagement 314 effort or tool used. Ms. Major noted her experience with different tools and materials 315 used on other project; and while the need was to differentiate the plan itself as Ms. 316 Perdu noted, and recognizing that three samples as requested could feed into the 317 schedule, the questions remained as to how many meetings, their level of effort for 318 different components, and other outreach options to reach the greatest number of 319 residents and obtain feedback from as many different demographic segments of the 320 community as possible. 321 Ms. Major advised that she attended a lot of meetings, but as a working mom, she didn’t 322 voluntarily attend many evening meetings in her own community. Therefore, if she 323 served as an example, Ms. Major noted the need to find a way to reach those segments 324 of the community through use of other tools, including under-represented groups. Ms. 325 Major noted that meetings were not always the best option, but also noted that face-to- 326 face options were the best, but needed to create momentum to make real things happen 327 and how best to gather that information based on what worked best for people in the 328 community. 329 Since the goal of this process isn’t to create or update a document, but to make things 330 happen in the community going forward and to provide a reason to do so, Chair 331 Boguszewski suggested there needed to be some level of efficiency to the current plan. 332 Ms. Major encouraged further PC feedback along that line. 333 Playing devil’s advocate, Chair Boguszewski questioned the need for 100 layers of 334 engagement, especially for those things that are still reasonably applicable and simply 335 needing tweaking here and there. 336 Member Cunningham argued that 100 levels of engagement were needed. 337 Chair Boguszewski noted thus the City Council’s desire for the PC to process this in 338 order to strengthen the city’s relationship with its community or why to do so. However, 339 Chair Boguszewski also noted there was a cost to that community engagement; and if 340 asking the questions and seeking public feedback, there was an inherent expectation 341 that the city would act on that input. 342 Ms. Major recognized that she heard about stakeholder engagement and city 343 commitment frequently, opining it was true of everyone involved in the engagement 344 process. However, Mr. Major also noted a big part of that community engagement was 345 also talking about the realities of making things happen; and in the absence of good 346 information being provided, people didn’t understand what was involved in that decision- 347 making (e.g. transportation issues, capital improvements, etc.). Therefore, in the WSB 348 team’s engagement process, Ms. Major advised that they actively tried to help people 349 understand the relationship between engagement and commitment. 350 With Chair Boguszewski noting that aspect included educating the electorate to make 351 wise choices in their votes, Ms. Major agreed it was a two-way discussion between the 352 “wish list” and “reality.” 353 Chair Boguszewski noted it also came down to many people perhaps agreeing on 354 something they wanted (e.g. community center) but note ready, able, or caring about 355 what that might mean in terms of cost. Chair Boguszewski opined that the process 356