2016_0224 HRC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 8, 2016 Page 22 1 2Mayor Roe advised that, of the 2016 priority projects for the CEC, he wasn’t per- 3sonally sure if those items aligned with the community’s vision. Mayor Roe stat- 4ed that his personal expectation specifically with starting community visioning 5work prior to the 2017 comprehensive plan, one thing talked about with the CEC 6last year and the different categories and spectrum of engagement (e.g. identifying 7stakeholders and tools for each type of process). Mayor Roe opined that was key 8in looking at the comprehensive plan update. However, with the current Imagine 9Roseville 2025 document being over ten years old and some of its provisions out- 10of-date based on decisions before the city now, Mayor Roe suggested it may be 11time to recommend a process to update – not recreate – that community vision as 12a starting point to initiate the comprehensive plan update. Mayor Roe opined that 13it would be his goal to have that update, not an extensive document difficult to 14use, but as a reference document at which time that related infrastructure work 15could be tied into other engagement processes (e.g. SE Roseville) and without 16giving the CEC too much that would prove difficult for it to accomplish in a time- 17ly manner. 18 19As a member of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Subcommittee, Councilmember 20Willmus stated he found the organization of that group overall quite effective and 21broad, with a number of satellite groups reporting back to the broader steering 22committee. Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in retaining that mod- 23el, but questioned it that effort should be put on the CEC. 24 25Mayor Roe clarified that it was not his intent that the CEC run the process, but 26simply recommend a process back to the City Council. 27 28Councilmember Willmus suggested the CEC could recommend utilizing the past 29process and ways to tweak it; and expressed appreciation to Mayor Roe for clari- 30fying his intent. Councilmember Willmus stated that it was his intent to look to 31the CEC to recommend models used in the past, their areas of success, areas need- 32ing revision and ideas to do so; but clarified he was not intending that the CEC 33become that steering committee nor that he had any intent of mixing those two 34contexts. 35 36Mayor Roe agreed with the comments of Councilmember Willmus. 37 38Councilmember Laliberte also agreed with those comments; clarifying that the 39City Council was not asking the CEC to recreate the wheel if good processes were 40already in place or simply needed tweaking, she would consider that first before 41working from scratch. Councilmember Laliberte spoke to learning lessons from 42those past processes and applicable suggestions for employing those strategies in 43some but not all cases, and why not; and systematically engaging processes in one 44place but not all. 45