Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />f� <br />� <br />LI <br />f <br />L tl <br />L1 <br />�� <br />� r• <br />�� 5 <br />1� <br />11 <br />o Could involve a great deal of community participation; <br />Cons <br />o The most expensive (tentatively estimated at $160,000 +); <br />o The most time consuming (possibly taking as long as two years to complete); <br />o Would discard some sections of the existing Comprehensive Plan that are <br />currently very usable, relevant and appropriate. <br />Rewriting Obsolete Portions of the Plan while Retaining and Updating the Relevant <br />Portions <br />PTOS <br />o Would reflect current community values as conceptualized in the Imagine <br />Roseville 2025 document; <br />o Could be a valuable and usable tool for guiding the community's mission, goals, <br />objectives and strategies; <br />o Could involve a great deal of community participation; <br />o Supported by the Roseville Planning Commission; <br />l� o Supported by the Directors of Community Development, Public Works and Parks <br />I�' and Recreation (the Fire and Police Departments are less affected by, or involved <br />L.� in, the comprehensive plan update); <br />I� <br />.:�;1 <br />�� <br />-� � <br />? .� <br />�� <br />�5 <br />y� <br />o The most efficient way of providing a meaningful update for the future of the <br />community. <br />�'�„�s <br />o Expensive (depending on how much of the existing plan is retained, tentatively <br />estimated at $50,000 to $125,000). <br />o Time consuming (possibly taking as many as 18 months to complete). <br />Budgetarv Implications <br />_ As noted by the Community Development Director in his budget presentations in August <br />�� and December 2006, funding for updating Roseville's ComprehensivePlan was not <br />?�� included in the 2007 budget. In discussions with the former City Manager and with the <br />.}� Finance Director, the intention was for the costs of the comprehensive plan update to be <br />}= borne by the reserve fund — as this is an expenditure that is irregular (occurring every 10 <br />��' — 12 years), costly, unbudgeted and of City-wide benefit that cannot be assigned to a <br />3 3 particular city department or budget line-item. <br />a� In December 2006, the Roseville Planning Commission unanimously adopted a motion <br />?� recommending that the City Council budget at least $60,000 for the rewriting or updating <br />3� of particular chapters (those most closely associated with the Community Development <br />�; 7 Department) of the Comprehensive Plan. This information was never presented to the <br />�� City Council due to a desire by the Public Works Director and the l�arks and Recreation <br />:}� Director to embark on a more holistic process that was inclusive of sections of the plan <br />a�� for which they would be most responsible. Also, at that time, two occurrences were <br />Council Comp Plan Memo 031907 Page � Of � <br />