My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2017
>
2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2017 3:57:58 PM
Creation date
9/13/2017 3:49:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/4/2017
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.
/
14
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
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 <br />Page 9 <br />Notifications and Announcements 403 <br />No comments 404 <br />Engagement Metrics 405 <br />Ms. Major addressed validity of digital media methods for the commission to consider in 406 <br />determining website use versus other forums. 407 <br />Discussion ensued, with the commission stating their interest in meaningful and valid metrics; 408 <br />growth of the contact list depending on who was engaging in the process; and how each target 409 <br />group could be tracked and how those goals for each would be established. 410 <br />Ms. Major noted the challenge in determining goals and how to measure them; advising that 411 <br />these are intended as sample goals used by their firm in other situations, but needing 412 <br />differentiation for tracking and goal setting for each and developing an understanding of each 413 <br />diverse group. Ms. Major clarified that these goals were a different thing, noting that simply trying 414 <br />to set a numeric goal may not be as meaningful and only results in checking the box; and while 415 <br />the goal may be met or perceived to be met, the question remained as to how meaningful that 416 <br />information was or if anything useful was learned for the final document or as tracking 417 <br />measurements. Ms. Major stated that therefore, she was also reluctant to not track and set goals; 418 <br />but the question remained as to whether or not the city’s money was being spent wisely, creating 419 <br />a balancing act in the process itself. 420 <br />Member Bull noted this was one of his areas of expertise and recommended setting a goal and 421 <br />target for the end product and then tracking each along the way for progress toward that goal. 422 <br />Member Bull noted that if some percentage of Roseville residents had gone out to the 423 <br />comprehensive plan update website one, what could be done to inspire engagement if that 424 <br />communication tool is garnering responses. Member Bull opined that it would result more likely in 425 <br />having meaningful input rather than little participation. 426 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested something more specific tied to the percentage, such as unique 427 <br />visitors to the web page at least once during the course of the year and defining the real end 428 <br />game. Overall, Chair Boguszewski noted the concern was that once the update was completed, 429 <br />and 2-3 years from now, if a significant percentage of the population indicates that the update 430 <br />wasn’t valid or if they hadn’t been aware of the update, or those choosing not to engage, how 431 <br />would that make the plan update valid related to the actual community and its vision and future. 432 <br />Chair Boguszewski recognized that there would always be a percentage of the population 433 <br />choosing not to engage, but admitted that he was wary of holding meetings where people didn’t 434 <br />show up. Instead, Chair Boguszewski stated his preference for options, such as through visiting 435 <br />the website, where fewer residents may participate, but provide measurable tracking and goal 436 <br />and inform how to proceed going forward. 437 <br />Member Bull suggested establishing a communication plan specific to the comprehensive plan 438 <br />and line items as part of that plan (e.g. city newsletter) and key things achieved, next steps and 439 <br />check-in points; but committed to outreach for that particular publication with the ability to 440 <br />determine if communication goals were being reached. 441 <br />Ms. Major advised that their firm sometimes developed explicit communications plans for this type 442 <br />of process; but based on her understanding, the city’s communication department staff would be 443 <br />leading that with their firm and other city staff. 444 <br />Ms. Collins confirmed Ms. Major’s understanding, and advised that the city’s communication 445 <br />department and its manager were very adept at exhausting those tools, and how to drive people 446 <br />to the website. Ms. Collins noted the huge list of thins they reviewed, including social media, 447 <br />news updates, or various spots on the website used to catch people’s eyes. Ms. Collins advised 448 <br />that staff and the consultants would work at mastering that process for the comprehensive plan 449 <br />update as well. 450 <br />Without objection, Chair Boguszewski stated the commission’s goal to update or refresh those 451 <br />communication vehicles, whether print or online, on a monthly basis at a minimum no matter who 452 <br />was responsible to do so, the city’s communication staff or the consultant and allowing a 453
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.