Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br />T�' T�f �iVf�S �l� ��' 'i�f l� R��F���if�Lr ��"i'� �0���:ii. <br />FROM: AMY IHLAN <br />SUBJECT: REVISED VISIONING PROCESS PROPOSAL <br />DATE: MARCH 21, 2006 <br />Here are my suggestions on the revised visioning process proposal: <br />1. Before we launch the process by considering appointments to a steering <br />committee, the council ought to formally decide how visioning will be funded and <br />what the timeframe for the process should be. Otherwise, we will create an <br />unfunded mandate for ourselves by starting something without any clear idea of <br />what it will cost or who will pay for it. <br />2. We do not have any funding for community visioning in the 2006 budget. I have <br />learned from Ed $u�rell and Chris Miller that the council appropriated $50,000 in <br />the 2000 and 2001 budgets for an update of VISTA 2000. Since the update did not <br />occur, that money either went into reserves or was spent elsewhere. Before going <br />forward, the council should decide whether we are prepared to allocate budget <br />money for community visioning, how much, and what the sources of funding should <br />be. <br />3. I propose that the council consider including funding for community visioning in <br />the 2007 budget, for a visioning process to occur between January and June 2007. <br />Here are the reasons why this makes sense: <br />A. It would allow us more time to plan and design the process, to issue RFPs <br />as needed, and solicit community interest. <br />B. It would allow us more time to figure out how much the process will cost, <br />and locate funding sources. We would be able to include community <br />visioning in our 2007 budget, and get public input on how much the city <br />ought to spend. It would also allow time to look for outside funding <br />sources. For example, I believe that St. Louis Park has received grant <br />funding for its current community visioning efforts. I would be willing to <br />volunteer to work on grant applications for Roseville's process, but would <br />need some reasonable time to do this. <br />C. If we want to maximize citizen involvement, the timing of the process is <br />important. Under the current proposal, most of the citizen work would <br />happen during the summer — a time when many people are vacationing, <br />spending time with their children, etc. It will also coincide with state- <br />wide and local election campaigns. I suggest that it would be better to <br />+ <br />0 <br />