My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-01-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/22/2010 2:04:42 PM
Creation date
3/22/2010 2:04:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
1/26/2010
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.
/
11
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
walkable community rather than encouraging additional vehicle use; the <br />walking bridge concept over Highway 36 from Hershel to Rosedale; <br />conflicts in safety and speed issues; logical connection points for <br />intersections; and recognizing the challenges in afully-developed <br />community such as Roseville. <br />Chair DeBenedet requested that staff keep the Roseville Citizen's League <br />informed on proposed and pending projects as they became finalized. <br />6. Organized Waste Collection Next Steps <br />Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt was present, at the request of the PWET <br />Commission, and provided options to solicit public input on garbage <br />services. <br />Discussion among members and staff included proposed size and content <br />of a mailed survey, utilizing a template developed by the International <br />City/County Management Association, with 3-5 questions targeted <br />specific to garbage service; study done to-date by the PWET Commission <br />for background information, and the need for the public to have the benefit <br />of that information to respond to questions rather than basing their <br />responses on misinformation; other options such as a newspaper article <br />defining the options being considered for recommendation by the PWET <br />Commission; with focus groups developed from those in the community <br />expressing interest in the subject to receive their collective input. <br />Member Felice expressed her preference for starting out with the focus <br />groups to provide an overview of the extent of knowledge on the subject <br />and what additional information was needed for an informed <br />recommendation. Member Felice noted her favorable impression with the <br />Parks Master Plan visioning meetings, while time-consuming, but still <br />providing significant public input. <br />Further discussion included how residents were chosen for a survey and/or <br />focus group by random selection, with a 10-20% estimated response rate; <br />Member Gjerdingen opined that the approach was the most important, no <br />matter the method used, recognizing past experience with community <br />sensitivities, reinforcing that fact that this is under discussion, not planned <br />and not being put in place at this time. <br />Chair DeBenedet opined that a mailed or on-line survey would be the least <br />useful, and spoke in support of a focus group, with open meetings, similar <br />to those the City had held last summer, even though not well attended <br />given the amount of advertising they' d received. <br />Further discussion included the advantages of an on-line survey allowing <br />more questions to be asked and massive amounts of data made available; <br />Page 6 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.