Re: Vision Meeting

["Linda Pall" <lpall@moscow.com>]

Dear Barbara and All,

Thank you all, especially Barbara and Art, for a most interesting morning!

I have just a couple of comments about the minutes (and thanks for the good
work and speed in producing these!).

About the minutes; please change the spelling of my name to Pall.

Somehow, the focus and substance of our group got lost in the mix.

Would you revise the group five report as follows? (or reproduce the
contents of the three pink cards we submitted... since I don't have those
exactly, what I write here is my best memory from my notes...)

1. Inventory of Existing Resources of Stakeholders
        a. current resources, programs, equipment, etc.
        b. future plans and proposals for information/technology programs.
    A partial list of stakeholders this group wants to include (NOT
exhaustive!):
        * small communities in both counties as well as Moscow and Pullman
        * Communication providers
        * Business community
        * Government, Education (k-12 and university), Libraries
        * Future business clients and economic development projects
        * Consumers
                'Haves' and 'Have nots'
                We want to provide a picture of our consumers (and under
number 2, their needs and desires).
        Note that 'have nots' may be affluent people without geographic
access to needed systems or people who, for economic or educational reasons,
do not have access. We share the idea that each household does not have to
have their own personal outlet but each person in our community needs to be
able to have access, relatively easily, to these sources (Moscow's potential
Democracy Project, library access, school access, etc.).

2. Needs assessment of stakeholders.
    Determine what information needs exist using the stakeholder list above.

3. Assess existing and desired public policies at city and county levels
that promote or impede the development and dispersion of information
technology.
    For example, county land use policies requiring land development
adjacent to existing towns and cities makes great sense for cable and phone
service. Allowing helter skleter development makes extension of utilities
incredibly costly and difficult!

I hope that this more expanded version of our group's conversation will more
accurately reflect our highly productive and interesting discussion.

Thanks for your consideration.

All the best,
Linda Pall
City Council Member
Office Phone: 208-882-7255
Office FAX: 208-882-9115




----- Original Message -----
From: Barbara Richardson <edc@moscow.com>
To: Talk@Smartpalouse. Com <talk@smartpalouse.com>
Cc: Nick Poling <npoling@turbonet.com>; Vision2020
<vision2020@whale.fsr.net>; Bob Hoover <hoover@uidaho.edu>; Brian Pitcher
<bpitcher@uidaho.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 5:37 PM
Subject: Vision Meeting


> Members,
>
> Today, with the help of Art Brown, we proceeded with the first major steps
> in the realization of a Smart Community.   I would like to thank all the
> participants for their valuable and helpful comments/ideas and
suggestions.
> I have attached a copy of our vision statement; organizational structure,
> and our action plans for the future.
>
> Without your help and insight, the first major planning process would not
> have been a success.
>
> Once again thank you and be prepared to work.
>
> Barbara Richardson
> Latah Economic Development Council
> 121 Sweet Ave.
> Moscow, Idaho 83843
> (208) 885-2832
> (208) 885-3803 (fax)
> edc@moscow.com
> www.moscow.com/edc
>