CC Minutes - 08/10/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Corey stated that the group conducted an internal audit of current activities and reviewed the best management practices from several other cities that adopted neighborhood strategic plans - cities such as Albany, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and San José, California. The group held brainstorming sessions in an effort to add to the council comments and information provided from past neighborhood discussions, Neighborhood Leadership Council (NLC) meetings, and the collective expertise of the assembled staff. Mr. Corey directed councilors to a spreadsheet posted on the wall which indicated the different comments and how they had been organized and information extrapolated from them to form primary objectives. He reported that the group used a dot exercise to conduct preliminary prioritization and ultimately identified 39 individual action steps. He reviewed Attachment A: Council Strategic Priorities Action Plan Launch Neighborhood Initiative, specifically the Planning Horizon and Focus and the Strategic Priority Outcomes and the respective timelines. He stressed that all of the implementation was dependent on resources being put into place to accomplish the tasks. In reviewing the list in the Action Plan, Mr. Corey said there were at least 30 fairly significant activities underway. He acknowledged that there was much work to do but wanted to emphasize the importance of recognizing the efforts already being made. He pointed out that the resource key was subjective and activities requiring less than $50,000 were generally considered low resource and those estimated up to $100,000 were considered medium and those over that amount or involving Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees would be considered to require a large resource. Continuing, Mr. Corey acknowledged the criticism received about the lack of neighborhood outreach in putting the plan together. He shared his response to the criticism: that this was the “first cut” at the council’s plan and this type of outreach would be a logical component to this plan. He stressed that this was the beginning point and not the ending point and that there was no desire to exclude neighborhood groups. Mayor Piercy called on the council for comments and questions. Mr. Kelly appreciated the good work in the plan and the merging of ideas “of a lot of folks.” He felt there were a number of problems as well. He wanted the revision of the plan to include outreach to the NLC and neighborhood organization about the revisions. He opined that the plan was “an embarrassment of riches” and wanted the plan to have a more narrowed focus. He noted that much of the focus of the council retreat in this regard had been on the Police Department and Planning and Development, with some focus on Public Works but to a lesser extent. He cited Item 14, sidewalk infill, as an action item that could be taken off the list. Mr. Kelly observed a synergy between the second theme, Enhance Public Engagement Activities, and the third theme, Support Neighborhood Involvement in Problem Solving. He thought enhancement of the role of neighborhood associations through empowerment would raise public involvement because people would think participation in such an association would give them the opportunity to make a difference. Mr. Kelly called the outcomes for Phase 1 “way too fluffy.” He wished to see outcomes that tied back to the three themes. Mr. Papé observed that the plan was an ambitious start. He agreed that it could be too broad in scope, but said he preferred to dream big and then cut back. He commented that some of the items, while they might include or touch on neighborhoods, might be better addressed on a citywide basis. He cited numbers 21 through 23, which addressed diversity in communities, as something that did not specifically involve MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2005 Page 2 Work Session