2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 12 perspective, Chair Boguszewski defined that weighting as: residents, business, and landlords in 554 that order. 555 Member Kimble noted the inputs would be different and questioned whether or not it made a 556 difference in the end; with Chair Boguszewski agreeing that was also a good point. 557 Additional discussion included tools to obtain meaningful information from non-residents and 558 surrounding communities, with Ms. Major suggesting a more deliberate invitation for advance 559 commitment from that particular focus group or stakeholders. 560 Desired Input Column 561 Members suggested including the concept of public rooms or gathering spaces and how to target 562 that experiential area; how to formulate models in the future and how to encourage long-term 563 engagement thoughts (e.g. tree policy, solar and chagrin stations); and what the community could 564 or should look like in twenty years. 565 Ms. Perdu clarified that the intent of this column at this point was to guide discussions to select 566 the right tools; even though it was generally known what to look for, it was good to identify what 567 tool would work best. 568 Existing Organizations or Events Column 569 Chair Boguszewski reiterated the need to involve the three commission representatives at each 570 and every event or opportunity identified or any added at a later date. 571 Discussion involved whether or not to call out specific underrepresented populations, with more 572 generalities suggested, such as cultural or language groups freeing up things geographically 573 versus specific identities and allowing families with multiple-cultural ties to be included; with the 574 need to maintain the ability to recognize those not being met; and again ensuring flexibility as the 575 process proceeds. 576 Further discussion included how to provide sufficient interpretation in advance of the meetings to 577 make them more user-friendly; ways to entice attendance; and simply using examples of some of 578 the groups within the “diverse cultures and/or languages.” 579 Ms. Major reiterated her intent to remove the “associations, networks, and media” engagement 580 targets form the spreadsheet and move it into the “media notification” section. 581 Member Bull asked that “realtors” be added to the “business community”: target group. 582 Potential Tools 583 Ms. Major noted areas already discussed, including visitors using intercepts; philanthropic and 584 community groups combined; and using either focus or stakeholder interviews. 585 Selected Tools 586 Based on tonight’s feedback and information from the CEC as listed mostly in the “participation 587 process” and remaining columns on the spreadsheet, Ms. Major advised that she would fill in this 588 section with suggested tools. 589 Member Kimble observed that the columns to the right seemed more tactical in nature with Ms. 590 Major agreeing that would become clearer in the next iteration. 591 Member Kimble asked the consultant to make sure they reviewed calendars for religious and 592 cultural holidays to avoid conflicts, duly noted by Ms. Major. 593 Referencing the ECHO project consisting of a multi-language video on renter rights and 594 responsibilities, sponsored by thirteen area government jurisdictions and housing agencies for 595 play on TPT TV, Ms. Collins noted that the City of Roseville had served at the helm in selecting 596 what languages would work, with subsequent identification of five major languages that would 597 prove most beneficial based on TPT viewership in Roseville and beyond. Ms. Collins advised that 598 those five languages were: English, Spanish, Karen, Hmong and Somali. Rather than identifying 599 target groups in the spreadsheet, Ms. Collins suggested identifying interpreters to attend larger 600 engagement sessions or at intercepts, and their availability for bi-lingual opportunities with 601