Laserfiche WebLink
At the meeting on February 9, 2004, some councilors identified a frustration with staff's inability to <br />scope the entire 42 items listed in Attachment A. In response to that question, staff now offers that, for <br />the purpose of resource allocation, a .25 to .50 FTE could be used for production of project deliverables. <br />This does not include public meetings or public hearings. That would indicate that a draft for policy <br />discussion could be forwarded to the Planning Commission or City Council for between $25,000 and <br />$40,000. In utilizing consultants, the public hearings are done on a time and material basis. It is done <br />this way for an obvious reason; that is, it is impossible for a consultant to assess the number, length, or <br />outputs associated with public discussion. <br /> <br />Staff faces the same issue associated with public meetings. In the City's current environment of policy <br />resolution, issues are often debated at great length, and subsequent to resolution, are re-crafted again in <br />the context of more policy debate. To accommodate this process resolution, subsequent work items are <br />delayed with staff' s hope that the next process can accommodate a more brief discussion. <br /> <br />The value of planning is that it provides a tool for realizing the vision of the community. Through <br />policy direction, staff can implement the means to achieve that goal. When previous policies are <br />readdressed, staff stops implementation of affected work items. By their very nature, very few planning <br />issues are going to have universal support. This results in a direct impact on workload and budget. <br />Illustrative of the City's public process is the Downtown Plan. The Downtown Plan is currently <br />scheduled for its fifth appearance on the City Council agenda subsequent to six Planning Commission <br />+3 meetings, and five Planning Commission sessions. A responsibility of staff is to manage these items <br />through policy resolution, but the resources necessary to complete the project are often indeterminable <br />when they are rediscussed prior to resolution. <br /> <br />Council Goal Action Priority <br />The Council Goal regarding effective, accountable municipal government is applicable to help the <br />Planning Division work openly, clearly communicate expectations with the goal of accountability and <br />improved service provision. <br /> <br />Financial and/or Resource Considerations <br />As mentioned in the previous Agenda Item Summary, the purpose of this discussion is twofold: <br />1. To prioritize and focus the work of the Planning Division; and <br />2. To align expectations with resources. <br /> <br />This continued discussion will give an opportunity to prioritize the work program within the Planning <br />Division and allow resources to then be aligned with City Council expectations. If there are particular <br />items on Attachment A that the council agrees need more detail to scope for additional funding, the <br />department can respond. <br /> <br />Other Background Information <br />Additional background information can be found in the January 21 and February 9, 2004, agenda item <br />summaries. <br /> <br />Timing <br />Implementation of a prioritized and focused work program will be immediate. <br /> <br /> L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040414\S040414A. doc <br /> <br /> <br />