2017-02-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲWğƓǒğƩǤЍͲЋЉЊА tğŭĻЊЉ measurement of how the update process is working and how the community is being engaged or 454 responding to the process. 455 Ms. Major assured the commission that they should meet the commission’s scope, with goals 456 aimed at who was being reached and whether the goals were being met. Ms. Major reiterated 457 that the tools listed were some used successfully by their firm in the past and all had their 458 limitations and specific problems. 459 Discussion continued about engagement tools specific to the comprehensive plan and those 460 indicating trends; defining email or contact lists specific to Roseville; with the commission in 461 agreement to ask the consultant to revise language for wording on #1 to enlarge those able to 462 sign up, but in effect only affecting those having an interest in the comprehensive plan. 463 Specific to #4, Ms. Major advised that their approach would be adjusted to attract participation 464 from larger group, while still holding thins accountable. Depending on the target groups and 465 information from participants or a spokesperson fro the group, Ms. Major advised each 466 communication tool would be different in an effort to improve participation; and would require 467 revisions throughout the process. 468 As problem areas are identified, Chair Boguszewski noted the need to involve CEC and Planning 469 Commission representatives in jointly brainstorming why a certain tool or format wasn’t working. 470 Chair Boguszewski stated his opposition to the word “attract” in this item, suggesting 471 “participation” as another term, but serving as a guiding principle in general or setting a target for 472 each group as suggested by Member Bull. 473 Ms. Major advised that she was adding an additional column to the spreadsheet to discuss 474 appropriate goals for each target. 475 Further discussion ensued on addressing language translation needs various groups as another 476 consideration; with Ms. Major using the example of intercept boards where they are worded and 477 formatted for easy language translations proven highly successful. Ms. Major advised that 478 discussions were at play about interactions at public meetings and language translations, as well 479 as interactions on social media. 480 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Collins addressed past practice of the city in 481 addressing different language needs; paid and volunteer assistance available; and how 482 engagements based on geographic areas in the community would assist to address that diversity 483 and ethnicity with the help of interpreters. 484 Even with the considerable time spent tonight by the commission on this component to ensure 485 measurable and meaningful metrics, Chair Boguszewski suggested involvement by the CEC in a 486 deep review based on their perspective and in response to this discussion. If and when the CEC 487 continues to provide their input, Chair Boguszewski expressed his interest in not omitting the 488 CEC and other advisory commission s from the process. 489 Ms. Collins agreed, but also cautioned recognizing the schedule for the overall process. Ms. 490 Collins advised that Ms. Major would be incorporating tonight’s input for presentation to the City 491 Council on January 23, 2016; and offered to email the information to the CEC and invite their 492 attendance at that meeting; as well as the information available to the public in the meeting 493 packet materials the week before, allowing any feedback to the City Council at that time from the 494 public and/or CEC. 495 Member Kimble cautioned the commission to resist the urge to micromanage this process; and 496 expressed appreciation to the consultants for their openness in receiving feedback; but noting the 497 need for the commission to avoid getting in the way of executing the process itself. 498 Chair Boguszewski agreed with those comments; stating satisfaction with the work do-date. 499 Ms. Major reminded the commission that the process remained flexible, and encouraged input 500 from the CEC on the communication metrics. 501