Laserfiche WebLink
additional meetings beyond what is currently forecasted. <br />Drawbacks: There are a number of topics already covered that are not in need of additional investigation, <br />thereby there may be some effort in investing additional time on discussion points the study group is not <br />interested in covering. This process provides for less ownership by surrounding property owners than a pure <br />grass roots process would provide. This process is not necessarily focused on consensus building as it is a <br />tool to address multiple, individual assumptions. <br />Estimations: Five (5) meetings, two (2) to three (3) months with a consultant (cost: $5,000, some Staff time), <br />2-3 months internally (cost: significant Staff time). Staff estimates that this cost could be reduced slightly if <br />the balance of Staff time and consulting services were amended. A change to the estimated balance would <br />require that the process is delayed to the winter months due to current service level demands for Staff time. <br />Alternative 2: Open Space Technology (OST)/Collaborative Process <br />The Open Space Technology Process is a very organic, collaborative process. This process allows participants <br />to frame the agenda focused on a single question. There is not an agenda set ahead of time. Traditionally, this <br />process works well for larger groups and allows for multiple, simultaneous sessions. <br />Benefits: This process allows participants to take ownership of the process, rather than an agenda and <br />timelines set by a facilitator. The process did work well over series of several meetings to build consensus <br />surrounding the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The process is a good tool to build consensus around a topic. This <br />process is an effective public participation tool that can lead to quality public input and allows participants to <br />be an active participant in the development of the process. This alternative would entail that the agenda <br />be set by participants prior to each meeting and individual sessions coordinated by participants. <br />Drawbacks: With less formal structure, there is the opportunity for the timeline to be extended beyond the <br />originally forecasted if time is not managed well. The process does require a strong facilitator that can <br />manage appropriate timeframes for the process to unfold with the need to work towards a consensus in a <br />managable timeframe. The process also allows for multiple, individual sessions to be held at the same time, <br />which may not be the best approach for the desires for outcomes and size of group expressed by <br />Councilmembers at the June City Council Meeting. <br />Estimations: The City Council should be committed to allowing sufficient time to allow the process to <br />complete, which may extend beyond the following estimations. The purpose of this structure is to allow the <br />process to unfold organically, regardless of the time necessary, making it somewhat difficult to estimate the <br />actual time necessary. Staff estimates that the timeline would be fairly similar to that of the traditional, <br />structured process, although would anticipate between one (1) to three (3) additional meetings compared to <br />the Traditional Process identified above. Staff estimates six (6) to eight (8) meetings total. Staff would <br />estimate this cost to be approximately $6,000. Total process would be held over three (3) to four (4) months. <br />Alternative 3: Hybrid Process <br />A hybrid, collaborative process could be considered that included elements of desired structure of a <br />traditional process with the collaborative environment of Open Space Technology. A suggested approach <br />would allow participants to set the agenda and convene sessions. In other words, the agenda would not be set <br />by the City or a facilitator ahead of time. An initial Scoping Meeting would be held to review the current <br />status of the project and the purpose of the study group. Rather than hosting several, parallel sessions as with <br />the case with Open Space Technology, the group would convene as a single group throughout the process. <br />The group would come to a consensus as to the agenda and topics as part of the initial Scoping Meeting, but <br />could amend depending on conversation throughout. This process would entail that the agenda be prepared <br />by participants at the onset of the process and agreed to a structured outline for the process as part of the <br />scoping meeting and individual sessions coordinated by participants with a greater degree <br />