• Matt Wendt: Yes. This is reasonable because it is close to the average amount of time and money spent by comparable cities. It is my understanding that Los Gatos recently updated their General Plan in a little over two years, while Mountain View took four years to complete their General Plan Update process. Gilroy, Mountain View and Cupertino’s General Plan Update’s cost is estimated to exceed or exceeded $1 million each. However, the city should always consider ways to reduce the amount of tax dollars spent and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a shortened process. The following website regarding the General Plan Update process includes the three year schedule under the documents section. http://morganhill2035.org
• Julian Mancias: Absolutely not! The City of Morgan Hill must reduce the time limit to no more than two years, even if it means reducing the scope of the report. By reducing the time on the General Plan, the City should be able to save a considerable amount of money.
• Rene Spring: Yes. We do not have a choice – we need to get it done and get it done right. It is expensive, but money well spent down the road. The current GP needs an update/overhaul and, as a Planning Commissioner, I look forward to hearing the inputs and ideas from the GPAC and others who care about the future of our beautiful community. I hope that the work can get done in less than 3 years, however, if not, I will prefer quality work over rush jobs.
• Jeff Smith: No, it is not reasonable. Why should it take so long, and why should it cost even a fraction of that? Almost a million bucks to “update” the plan? I thought the city council was an unpaid volunteer organization. Of course the problem with these local questions is that unless you are part of the inner workings of the city you have little idea of what such a plan even entails. But it sounds wasteful and unnecessary.
• Martha Artiles: It is difficult to say if it is reasonable without understanding all of the intricacies of the plan. I think it is very important to take the appropriate time, which may be 3 years, to assure we are getting all of the needed citizen perspectives to assure our city is well designed for the future.
• Bert Berson: No. It’s difficult to make a calculation without the contract details. A rough estimate is that it amounts to two to three people a year over the three-year contract. Putting the plan together is a big job considering the multiple aspects to be addressed, the need to meet government regulations and the time required to have public outreach and comments.
• Karen Anderson: Yes. Cities vary but the State recommends a major update every 10 years. Because Morgan Hill has a great deal of land and a growing population, care must be taken to use the land wisely. Gilroy’s update will cost over $1,000,000. Morgan Hill is encouraging great citizen participation. Some cities with little growth potential do mini-updates as needed for much less cost.
• Chris Bryant: Yes, Planning on this scale does, and must, take time and a lot of public involvement. While some think this is all being done in a backroom somewhere by people trying to enrich themselves, this is actually an effort to plan how Morgan Hill will evolve over the next 20 years based on reality and incorporating as much public input as possible. If you aren’t attending any of the numerous public meetings and providing constructive input, then you are giving up your right to complain. Change is inevitable and occurs without effort, planning and guiding that change is hard.
• David Cohen: Yes it is. But I truly believe it can be done in two years and saving the city one-third of that amount.
• Kathleen Sullivan: No. I agree with the Morgan Hill Times recent editorial that the process can be condensed to two years. In regards to the $900,000 price tag which does seem steep, I have not seen the break down on how the money will be allocated. Projects often call for transparency, public outreach and the collection of opinions and these all have time and money costs attached. Still I would be interested in knowing what costs are being covered by this money.
• Hank Miller: No. I think three years is too long and almost $1 million is too much. Too often, government contractors, be they federal or local, think they are part of the bureaucracy and can act accordingly by spending lots of taxpayers money and taking inordinate amounts of time to do essential tasks. And you know why? Because they can get away with it.
