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
potential of focus groups being held first, then public comment at a regular <br />PWET Commission meeting; with the focus group provided the <br />information from staff to the PWET Commission to-date, as a sufficient <br />starting point for their discussions, with that information provided to them <br />in advance for preparation for discussion at the focus group meetings. <br />Additional discussion included how to ensure the validity of participants <br />in an on-line survey; engaging people by asking the right questions; using <br />the on-line survey after the focus group to allow the group to sharpen the <br />questions and on-line information. <br />Chair DeBenedet suggested that a schedule for potential focus groups <br />seemed to be the next step. <br />Mr. Pratt advised that February or early to mid-March would be best to <br />accommodate other staff work projects. <br />Member Vanderwall noted that the weather would be more favorable for <br />attendance at the focus groups at that time as well. <br />Chair DeBenedet suggested the end of March or early April for focus <br />group meetings, with the public invited to attend. <br />Mr. Schwartz suggested that the PWET Commission appoint a small <br />subcommittee or committee liaison for that group as an observer; and Mr. <br />Pratt suggested the need for a note taker at those meetings to generate <br />data. <br />Member Vanderwall spoke in support of an open-ended discussion at the <br />focus group level to determine the best ideas, and then from that have the <br />focus groups prepare the issues by topics or next steps in a more organized <br />way. <br />Member Felice suggested polling the focus group to see what they needed <br />to make a better decision, after their review and discussion of the initial <br />background information provided by the PWET Commission. <br />Member Stenlund suggested that the focus group be tasked to define <br />questions for the on-line survey and that they also lead discussions at a <br />regular PWET Commission meeting. <br />Staff was so directed to proceed as indicated. <br />George Walters, Walters Recycling and Refuse <br />Mr. Walters provided a bench handout for staff to forward to PWET <br />Commissioners by e-mail and for the public to have benefit of that <br />information as well. <br />Page 7 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.