02-11-98 Minutes
CHANHASSEN ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 11, 1998
Meeting called to order by Uli Sacchet at 7:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Leith, Uli Sacchet, Bill Coldwell, Maureen Farrell, Jack
Atkins, Susan Wright, and Susan Morgan
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Susan Markert
STAFF PRESENT:
Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Changes to January 21, 1998 minutes: Maureen Farrell was
present at January meeting. Minutes were then approved.
RECYCLING PROJECT UPDATE:
Phone line narrativeof recycling information was
passed out by Andy. All agreed information looked good. Magnet was also approved by all.
Web site information will be completed by Andy and put on the city home page by time the
newsletter is mailed. Jack suggested the Commission invite comments on the web site and phone
line. Jill reported the City will receive the finished newsletters on Feb. 19 and they will be mailed
rd
out on the 23, so the Commission will have approximately four days to insert magnets. Sue
Morgan suggested working on the newsletters Thurs. or Fri. nights. Jack contacted the local Boy
Scout troop for volunteers and suggested Fri. night would work best for them. It was decided the
magnets would be inserted on Fri., Feb. 20, 6:00 - 9:00 p.m. at City Hall. Promotion for the
thth
magnets will be put in the Villager on both the 19 and 26 issue dates. Andy and Uli will call the
th
paper for the story in the Feb. 26 issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY:
Commission discussed one of the 1998 goals, an
Environmental City-wide Survey. Debate was has on which medium would be more effective - a
phone survey or a mailed survey. Arguments against paper included: it would be thrown out
(recycled) and not mailed back. Arguments against phone calls included: on-the-spot answers
would not yield accurate results and not wanting to be grouped with unwelcome sales calls in the
evening. A suggestion was made to include the survey on a postcard in the city newsletter.
Others believed first the Commission needed to figure out what exactly it wanted to know by
conducting the survey. Uli said the Recycling Commission did a phone survey of 100 people,
which was statistically accurate and random, and the result was acceptable. It gave a good cross-
section and would be a workable way of surveying without creating a lot of waste. Bill thought
the Commission would need to agree on a script in order for everyone to get quantitative
answers. Sue M. wondered if the Commission really wanted to do a survey. Maureen thought it
would bring up relevant issues for discussion, but Sue said they needed quantitative answers.
Andy believed a mail survey is the answer. Sue offered the idea of a sidewalk survey. Andy
wondered what the Commission would do with the survey once they did it. Bill thought the
feedback would be good. Uli stated that the fundamental question is ‘why do we want to do
this?’. So the Commission can go to the City Council and relay the residents thoughts and
opinions on environmental issues, said Jack. Maureen said that its necessary to have 5 different
ways of getting a message across before individuals accept it and the commission could go with a
simple approach such as, ‘these are areas that impact our community…’ and have them rank the
areas in importance with comments at the end. Uli reviewed the goal list and wondered what can
the commission ask that has meaning to residents and the commission. Maureen thought
education could be a part of the survey. Sue said no, the commission needs information from the
residents rather than vice versa. Maureen felt ambivalent about the need for a survey. Sue
believes part of the problem is that the Commission doesn’t have a focus. It’s up to the residents
to decide what’s important. The survey should be straightforward, ‘we’re the environmental
commission, we represent you, what is important to you?’ Andy steadfastly stood by his opinion
that a phone survey is rubbish. Residents are put on the spot and their answers therefore won’t be
valid. Jack thought that in order to get valid responses, the commission needs to go out and talk
to residents. Bill offered that the discussion should be tabled and members should think about it.
He added that the survey must be carefully worded so as not to ask leading questions. Jill handed
out copies of information on sustainable indicators, a subject very similar to the kind of
information the commission is looking for in the survey. Discussion will resume at the March
meeting.
ARBOR DAY:
Update.
Maureen: Mushroom man is interested and probably will come.
Stan Teikela is unavailable, but was invited for next year.
Uli: Herp. Soc. is interested, but there won’t necessarily be reptiles from this
area or a formal presentation.
Sue: WRR is confirmed
Watershed Partners is unavailable, but are booked for next year.
Jack: Sat. is the boy scouts food drive
Public Safety is confirmed
Jill: Raptor Center is confirmed.
Halla/Lotus not really interested. (EC consensus: they’re not necessary.)
Will reserve 30’ x 50’ tent.
Will contact Arboretum
Bill: Will contact landscape architect
Promotion: Chanhassen Bank sign, Merit Heating sign, Eaton sign?, web page,
Villager, banners?
GENERAL DISCUSSION:
Jill announced April 6 is the date of the joint meeting with the City
Council. The time will be approximately 7:30 - 8:30 p.m. Questions for the Council will be
solidified at the March meeting.
There are currently two applicants for the vacant positions as of march. Jill will mail applications
to Jack, Bill, and Susan Wright. Interviews with the new applicants may happen at the March
meeting and interviews with all applicants at the April meeting with the City Council.
Maureen and Sue will be attending the Greening Conference on Feb. 28.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Prepared and Submitted by Jill Sinclair
g:/plan/js/ec/2-11-98MIN