2010-02-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Conunission Meeting Minutes Page 6 -January 26, 201 D Management Association, with 3-5 questions targeted specific to garbage service; study done to-date by the PWET Commission for background information, and the need for the public to have the benefit of that information to respond to questions rather than basing their responses on misinformation; other options such as a newspaper article defining the options being considered for recommendation by the PWET Commission; with focus groups developed from those in the community expressing interest in the subject to receive their collective input. Member Felice expressed her preference for starting out with the focus groups to provide an overview of the extent of knowledge on ..:the subject and what additional information was needed for an informed rcci~nn~endation. Member Felice noted her favorable impression with the Parks Master Plan visioning meetings, while time-consuming, but still providing tii ~n~ificant public input. Further discussion included how residents were ;clidsen for a survey and/or focus group by random selection, with a 10-20`.`o estimated response rate;.::. Member Gjerdingen opined that the approach vas the. most important, no matter the method used, recognizing past experience with community sensitivities, reinforcing that fact that this is under discussion, nut planned anal not being put in place at this time. Chair DeBenedet opined that a miiilecl ~~r can-line sun~c~~ would be the least useful, and spoke in support of a focus gr~~up, ~~ ith opn n-ieetings, similar to those the City had held last sunti~er, even th~~tbh not ~vel1 attended given the amount of advertising they `d rccci~~ec~. Further discussion itaclitded the advantages of an on-line survey allowing more questic~iis to,be as}:ed and ~~~<~ssive amounts of data n-tade available; potential of focus groups tieing Held first, then public comment at a regular PWET Commission meeti~i~~: «~itli the:focus group provided the information from. staff to the PWET Comtiissiott to-date, as a sufficient starting point for their discussions, with` that informatic+r provided to them in advance for preparation for discussion at the fi}Gus group meetings. Additional discussion included how to ensure the validity of participants in an on- line survey; c~tgaging people by asking the right questions; using the on-line survey after the focus group to allow the group to sharpen the questions and on- line information. Chair DeBenedet suggested that a schedule for potential focus groups seemed to be the next step. Mr. Pratt advised that February or early to mid-March would be best to accommodate other staff work projects.