My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-10-25_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2017 12:23:39 PM
Creation date
1/25/2017 12:23:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/25/2016
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
priorities and areas of greatest impact or threat to water resources addressed and <br /> ranked by the public to-date. Ms. Nestingen encouraged individual PWETC <br /> members to participate in the electronic survey. <br /> Discussion included how the minimal responses compared to other communities <br /> and their rankings (similar to Burnsville rankings and trending there based on 80 <br /> responses); invalidity of the survey at this point given the few responses received; <br /> how to promote the survey to receive additional participation; and other electronic <br /> options to push involvement and public feedback. <br /> Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer advised that his staff would work <br /> with the Communication Department to emphasize and promote the electronic <br /> survey. <br /> Chair Cihacek opined that given the number of households in Roseville, the survey <br /> results to-date were insufficient to indicate any accurate trends. <br /> Member Lenz encouraged Ms. Nestingen and city staff to rethink community <br /> outreach, utilizing all current technology to increase that participation. <br /> Specific to water quality issues displayed by Ms. Nestingen, Member Wozniak <br /> asked if there was data and measurements available from other agencies (e.g. <br /> Department of Natural Resources, Ramsey County Public Works, etc.) that would <br /> provide additional data but had already been published. Member Wozniak opined <br /> that data would help inform the city's plan, and be helpful for residents if accurately <br /> reflecting the Roseville water quality picture. <br /> Ms. Nestingen responded that such data wasn't in the current plan, but could be <br /> added to the plan update. <br /> As suggested by Member Heimerl, Chair Cihacek agreed that providing <br /> comparison survey analysis with other area communities (e.g. Cities of Shoreview, <br /> Arden Hills and New Brighton)could provide and supplement the City of Roseville <br /> survey for an apples to apples comparison and provide higher niche data allowing <br /> for better judgment overall. <br /> Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer noted city staff would also be doing <br /> this process with the City of Falcon Heights, even though it had no water bodies <br /> within their jurisdiction, similar questions could be reflective of their community <br /> as well. Mr. Freihammer stated staff and Ms. Freihammer would accept as many <br /> results as were forthcoming. <br /> Member Lenz contributed the lack of survey responses to a communication <br /> problem, with the PWETC not even aware of the survey available online. <br /> Page 11 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.