My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2023_0425_PWETCPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
202x
>
2023
>
2023_0425_PWETCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/27/2023 9:04:51 AM
Creation date
4/27/2023 9:00:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/25/2023
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.
/
185
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
Badge 3: Selected Structure <br />Under the selected structure, actions were reworded to reflect goals <br />that are predicted to have a higher impact on climate change. These <br />actions would have a one-to-one ratio with leaves, where a <br />community completes one action and receives one leaf for it. Many of <br />the actions can be repeated. For example, if an action was "Install or <br />support a community renewable energy project," a city could achieve <br />one leaf for adding a project in one year and another for a separate <br />project a different year (Figure 8). <br />Structure Preferences <br />Structure 1 <br />_ Structure 2 <br />22% <br />Structure 1 <br />• Structure 2 <br />• Structure 3 <br />Structure 3 <br />78% <br />Figure 9: Advisory Committee preferences for <br />each proposed badge structure. <br />Pilot Program <br />YO vv eooa�`e <br />�Jow, QIto1e / <br />Figure 8: Draft Leaf example <br />Quantitatively, this was the structure that received the <br />most positive feedback (Figure 9). More advantages were <br />identified than disadvantages, and the advisory committee <br />reported a clear preference of this structure than the <br />others. The committee did bring up some questions of <br />what this may look like aesthetically under this structure, <br />depending upon the type of display used to showcase the <br />awarded leaves. Complexity has been a common concern <br />throughout this process, and this structure was praised for <br />being simple. <br />Launching a nine -month pilot program, followed by a two -month evaluation period with <br />five to six participants is recommended to implement this new program. These <br />participants should include (if interest is expressed): <br />• at least one Step 5 city <br />• at least one city at any Steps 2 or 3 <br />• at least one tribal nation <br />• a consideration for participants across Minnesota <br />• a consideration for participant size and capacity <br />Pilot program participants should: <br />0 <br />• Commit to implementing and reporting at least 2 NEW actions (see Appendix A) during the pilot <br />period. <br />• Provide feedback on the program structure and support <br />• Serve as ambassadors of the official program launch <br />Gold Leaf Program Proposal I www.MNGreenStep.org <br />11 <br />Page 63 of 185 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.