Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1990 Meeting e M I NUT E S City Council/Strategic Plan Committee McNutt Room--City Hall November 1, 1990 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Jeff Miller, Chair; Kappy Eaton, Roger Rutan, Don McLoud, Joan Rich, members; Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Richard Perry, Debra McMillen, Bobbie Green, Cheryle Hawkins, Budget Committee. 1. WORK SESSION: STRATEGIC PLAN Mr. Wong said the meeting was intended as follow-up to the October 1, 1990, work session on financial planning, as well as the council's goals-setting session held the previous week. He said the purpose of the meeting was to present information on the definition and function of strategic planning. Mr. Wong anticipated that the meeting would result in a recommendation from the Strategic Plan Committee (SPC) to the full Budget Committee. Mr. Wong said strategic planning does not occur overnight; in other words, the process will not affect the FY92 budget. Staff is now preparing that e budget. Mr. Wong anticipated that the strategic planning process would af- fect the FY93 budget. He said that strategic planning takes time and consid- erable interaction with the involved stakeholders. Additionally, it will require City resources to complete the strategic planning process. Mr. Wong introduced Dr. Jeff Luke of the University of Oregon. He noted that Dr. Luke is very experienced in strategic planning and has acted as a consul- tant to various cities and other government agencies in completing strategic plans. Dr. Luke distributed handouts regarding strategic planning to those present. He introduced himself as an associate professor in planning, public policy, and management at the University, and noted that he was currently involved in strategic planning at the University, the State Bureau of Labor and Indus- tries, and the City of Portland. Dr. Luke said he had recently completed facilitating the strategic planning process for Jackson County's Department of Health and Human Services. Additionally, Dr. Luke noted that his staff is involved in the City of Springfield's strategic planning process. Dr. Luke reviewed the handout, encouraging those present to interrupt with questions when necessary. Dr. Luke said strategic planning in the public sector is different than stra- tegic planning in the private sector. Strategic planning has its origin in the public sector and had been adapted by the private sector. Dr. Luke said e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 1 ---- e there has been a reawakening of interest on the part of the public sector in strategic planning. He said that governmental strategic planning should be judged by different standards than private strategic planning. Additionally, the strategic planning process must be custom-tailored to each jurisdiction. The amount of time required to complete the process varies widely; the pro- cess is often messy, and subject to fits and starts. Dr. Luke said that if strategic planning is pushed too fast, people are pushed out of the process. Ms. Hawkins asked how long a period of time a strategic plan was useful. Dr. Luke responded that it depended on how fast the environment changed; it could be as little as six months or as long as six years. He recommended that the planning period be limited to five to ten years. He stressed that the fur- ther out the planning period extends, the weaker the plan assumptions are. It was best to revisit the plan every two to three years. Dr. Luke said the purpose of the process was not to develop a plan but rather to develop stra- tegic thinking and action. Dr. Luke said successful completion of the strategic planning process will require a powerful process sponsor, such as the Mayor and key outside stake- holders, to provide the plan with political legitimacy. Additionally, there must be champions of the process on the inside working daily to keep the process vital and moving ahead. Dr. Luke recommended that there be more than one process champion. Dr. Luke said that the process also requires a strategic planning team. He added that the team should be assembled carefully; members must be good man- e agers, good thinkers, and good "doers." He said the members of the planning team are often required to process raw data for consumption by a larger audi- ence. He indicated that the process champion sits on the team, perhaps as chair. Dr. Luke stressed that it should be clear to those participating on the team that they should expect disruptions and delays in the process. The process is not clean or simple. He said that the participants must also be willing to be flexible regarding what constitutes a strategic plan, as well as willing to consider and construct arguments geared to many different cri- teria. Dr. Luke pointed out that there is a wide variety of stakeholders in the public sector, each with their own criteria. He said that an open pro- cess must consider all points of view. Dr. Luke distributed samples of plans developed by other government entities. Dr. Luke discussed the differences between strategic and operational plan- ning. He said that strategic planning has a long time frame and a strong external focus. The theory behind strategic planning was "doing the right things," rather than "doing things right," as in operational planning. Mr. Boles asked Dr. Luke to expand on the difference between assigning prior- ities and assigning resources, which he maintained were intertwined. Dr. Luke agreed, but said that one must assign priorities before one assigns resources to achieve those priorities. He termed it as a "goals versus means" approach. Mr. Boles asked if priorities were assigned without consid- eration of resources. Dr. Luke responded that strategic planning tries to e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 2 develop priorities based on vision and develop means to get there versus e having a vision based on practicality. He said strategic planning was based on the future versus the present, but the plan must be modified by the re- sources at hand. Dr. Luke added that the planning team should not allow its vision to be impeded by current problems. Mr. Green asked how the plans developed by different jurisdictions were simi- lar. Dr. Luke referred to the handout materials, and said that all processes included an assessment of where the organization was at the present time. This assessment was reached through a "SWOT" analysis, or an examination of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Dr. Luke said that, for example, the City of Eugene could look at external trends that affect the organization and forecast which of those trends would provide opportunities and which would provide threats. He added that in cities he has studied, the process entails a great deal of community participation. For example, the City of Anaheim employed focus groups, while the City of Portland held commu- nity town meetings. The assessment allows the organization to establish the 3 to 12 strategic issues confronting the jurisdiction over the planning peri- od. Dr. Luke distributed a draft list of issues identified by community partici- pants in Portland. He said that issues were written as strategic goals for the community of Portland. Responding to a question from Ms. Rich, Dr. Luke said that schools, private sector firms, and nonprofit corporations were all involved in the development of the goals. The goals were stated as though achieved in the year 2000. Dr. Luke said the planning team will pare the e goals down from the top nine to four or five goals at its next meeting. Ms. Rich asked why the number of goals was reduced. Dr. Luke responded that it was due to a lack of resources. The City must target its resources to the most critical issues. Ms. Eaton asked if, in Dr. Luke's experience, there is an effort on the part of those participating in the process to amalgamate the issues. She asked how Dr. Luke would address this tendency. Dr. Luke said that amalgamation of the issues was a danger, and it was necessary for the consultant working with the planning team and policy committee to avoid that direction. The other option was to allow all the goals to be placed under broad headings and let the planning team determine its own process. Ms. Eaton asked if the strategic planning process included teaching people negotiating skills. Dr. Luke said no, although he felt that was a good idea. He added that it was difficult enough getting people to participate in the process without requiring them to spend additional time on learning new skills. He said the center uses a team of eight facilitators to help small subgroups of larger groups negotiate between themselves to reach consensus. After a period of time has gone by, the planning team learns to facilitate its own meetings. Dr. Luke said the assessment and establishment of goals was followed by visioning, which led to the development of action plans around those visions. The responsibilities for implementing the plan, the resources necessary to e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 3 e implement the plan, and the time lines for implementation were then estab- lished. Or. Luke cautioned that if the plan is not integrated into the or- ganization's budget, it will fail. He said a successful community strategic plan involves a multiplicity of agencies, not only the city organization. This means that those agencies must "buy into" the plan as well. Dr. luke termed the process he had described (assessment, vision, implementation) a "meta model." Mr. Perry asked if the success of the model Dr. luke described was related to the number of the parties involved. Dr. luke said the success was achieved by involving key stakeholders in the community in the process from the begin- ning to the end. Councilor-elect Nicholson asked what made a stakeholder a "key" stakeholder. Dr. Luke said key stakeholders were those with influence on the vitality and quality of life in the community. Mr. Nicholson asked if the lack of active outreach to people who chose not to be key stakeholders was a problem. Dr. luke said yes; it was important to reach those people, who might not participate as stakeholders, but should be included in the process. This can be achieved through community forums, focus groups, and town meetings. He added that participation cannot be forced. Mr. Nicholson expressed concern over the use of the phrase "key stakeholder." He felt it implied a process where some might exert undue influence over the process. Dr. Luke reiterated that it was important to ensure that other voices are heard in the process. This meant that a channel for such communication must be built into the process. He said that Portland had not only used community forums but a community survey to ensure that all perspectives are considered. e Mr. Boles observed that the City of Eugene already does a considerable amount of public outreach at the present time. He asked how the process Dr. Luke was describing differed from the process already in place. Dr. Luke said he was unsure of how the City's citizen outreach process operated. He said the City could use its existing Citizen Involvement Committee as a basic policy committee, if it chose. He did not think that the City should assemble an- other body if there was already a policy body in operation that could serve as a planning team. Ms. Rich said the City already uses a community goals- setting process that includes citizen input. Dr. Luke said strategic plan- ning was different from goals-setting in that goals-setting generally focuses on one- to two-year outcomes. Strategic planning focuses on the longer term, and entails a look at the worldwide trends that will affect the community. Mr. Rutan noted that those present constituted a cross-section of the City's Budget Committee. He said that the City has gone through a budgeting process that will not continue to work for the community. Strategic planning has been offered to the committee as a way to get out of the cycle it is in now regarding budgeting. Mr. Rutan said the committee was seeking a process wherein the Budget Committee or community can examine financial and service issues and reach positive, constructive solutions for the City's financial and service problems. Mr. Rutan said the committee or some other group must come up with solutions or local government faces dramatic decisions. Mr. Nicholson asked Mr. Rutan if he saw the process as a proposal for a better way to set priorities. Mr. Rutan said while he wanted to know more, he saw e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 4 - the process as a way to reach a community vision and establish goals to reach that vision. Budget Committee members discussed the purpose of the meeting. Ms. Rich said it was her belief that the committee was meeting to discuss financial plan- ning. She was concerned about the possibility of employing a communitywide strategy, which would delay resolution of the financial problems facing the City organization. She asked if strategic planning could be focused on fi- nances. Dr. luke said yes. He said that some cities do strategic planning just for financial reasons. He said a strategic plan will not help the or- ganization if it was "time to bite the bullet," though it would make it clear where that must happen. Mr. Miller said the organization could go through a community strategic plan process including financial components, but the fear of the committee was that by the time it reached the FY93 budget planning stage the financial situation will be so bad that it will be disruptive to the community. Dr. luke said that unless the City gets public support for its work it will not be able to implement its strategy. Mr. Rutan said one of the results of the strategic planning process was that as the organization went through the process it would examine services from the bottom up. Priorities will be determined from that process and the City can then determine how to fund those priorities. Many services may not be carried forward. Mr. Rutan felt that it would be best to start with such a clean slate in order to avoid debates about philosophy, because decisions would be made through community consensus. Ms. Rich asked if Mr. Rutan wished to go through the entire process outlined by Dr. Luke. Mr. Rutan said e no. He believed that the committee had on hand a great deal of the informa- tion necessary for an assessment of the organization's position. Mr. Nicholson asked if Mr. Rutan was proposing to take the goals already estab- lished through other processes for granted and start with a clean slate in determining how to implement the goals. Mr. Rutan said that was one method to consider. Mr. Perry asked how the community would raise the level of demand for servic- es and quality of life to the point that people are willing to address the question of limited resources and consider expanding the resource base. He felt if the community set the priorities, the community might be willing to raise the resource level. Mr. Boles said Mr. Perry's comments reflected the basic tensions existing in the community at the present time: There was one school of thought that believed government should be downsized to fit its resources, and another school of thought that maintained that government services are important and resource levels should be raised to support them. He felt that was the focus for a financial planning process. He agreed with Mr. Rutan that the community has already done a great deal of planning and has, in fact, met many of the goals it has established in the past. Mr. Nicholson said that most of the controversies he had witnessed or been a part of had not been disputes about goals, but rather whether action taken was pertinent to realizing a goal or compromised another goal. He cited the Riverfront Research Park as an example of a controversy where the creation of the park as a means of diversifying the economy conflicted with the goal of e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 5 quality of life in the parks system. He did not see where reconciliation of e such conflicts existed in the model Dr. luke had presented, or where the consequences of a decision were factored into the equation or tested. Dr. Luke referred to the Bryson model included in the handout, and said that the model presented an opportunity for testing goals. Mr. Miller asked Dr. luke if the committee could design a process that ad- dressed its concerns about financing while beginning the proper dialogue with the community using the foundation already laid. Dr. Luke said he believed it could be done, but using only technical experts to develop a plan will make it more difficult to secure community support. While the committee might come up with great ideas, the public may refuse to support those ideas. Unless a component is built into the planning process that includes the right stakeholders, the plan will not succeed. Dr. luke said that if the committee decides to develop a strategic financial plan, it will need to spend as much time selling the plan as creating the plan. Ms. Hawkins asked how the committee could motivate the community to want to be involved. She said that people are bored by budgetary issues until those issues affect them directly. Dr. Luke agreed. He said that the committee will be unable to create change unless people feel change is necessary. He said that the community of Portland faced this problem. The City had to design a process wherein the community stakeholders walked through a future scenario that showed that things were not going to be good. The City had to create that felt need to stimulate the participation that leads to change. Dr. Luke said the City of Eugene might have to do the same thing, or let a e crisis begin to emerge to stimulate interest; however, strategic plans seldom deal with immediate crisis very well. Mr. Boles pointed out that the council and committee was charged by the public with avoiding such crisis. He ex- pressed the hope that the committee could narrow its focus on financial mat- ters and include the community in the discussion. Dr. Luke summarized the different types of strategic plans: 1) community- wide strategic plans, such as done by Portland and planned by Springfield, which are vision-based plans that examine all the different services offered by city government and other organizations; 2) corporate strategic plans, which he felt was what the committee was moving toward, and which focus on organizational and financial issues and consider the long-range future via- bility of the corporate entity; and 3) functional strategic plans, such as those which focus on community economic development. Dr. Luke said it ap- peared that the committee was more interested in a corporate plan for the City of Eugene as a financial entity rather than in a communitywide plan dealing with those issues and agencies affecting the quality of life in Eu- gene. Mr. Rutan agreed with Dr. Luke's statement, but said that there may be exceptions the committee was unaware of at the present time. He said as an example, the committee might determine something was a priority to be funded and find there was no community interest in funding that service. Dr. Luke said it seemed that the committee had an opportunity to design a unique pro- cess that was communitywide and focused on financial issues. It could in- volve considerable community outreach and focus groups discussing financial e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 6 issues. He reiterated his previous statement that no two plans were the e same. Mr. Miller said the SPC needed to outline a plan for the consideration of the committee and council in order to see how the process might work. The com- mittee needs to agree that it wishes to proceed with strategic planning. Dr. luke referred to the Phoenix Futures Forum process outline included in the packet. He said that the committee may find it can adapt the process to strategic financial planning. He said that process had included five commu- nity forums. Ms. Rich said she thought that a corporate planning process would not involve the same level of public participation as outlined in the Phoenix model. Dr. luke responded that it was his belief that the plan would be "dead in the water" if the committee proceeded without that level of pub- lic participation. Ms. Rich said she believed it would be easier for the committee to start the process on its own, although she supported the idea of public participation. She considered that to start out with 40 or 50 people and their hopes for Eugene ensured that the community would never get to the financial issues in a timely way. She asked if the process could begin with the Budget Committee and then follow the model. Dr. luke said the committee could follow the same process with a focus on finances. Mr. Gleason outlined a possible scenario for the committee to pursue. He said that the Budget Committee already forms a type of strategic planning committee. The Budget Committee could serve as the steering committee for the process. It would need to agree on the current conditions facing the City, and then use forums, surveys, and pamphlets to make the community aware of the condition. Mr. e Gleason said Mr. Boles had accurately characterized the situation. The com- mittee could downsize the organization, which he stressed would not be easier in Eugene than the alternative of seeking new revenues, or choose a combina- tion of downsizing and seeking new revenues. The committee would need to work through the issue with the community until it could test a consensus and then take action around that consensus. Ms. McMillen said that one of the problems facing the committee was its own inability to reach consensus on the issues. She liked the idea of employing a community process that involved the key stakeholders as a way to obtain more broad-based community support for a resolution. Ms. McMillen said the committee could arrive at consensus regarding the City's situation. Then, when all the people are aware of the situation, they could be involved in the discussions. Mr. Nicholson said the City's "selling" of issues in the past was a principal source of cynicism in the community and a block facing the committee. If the committee needs to "sell" its agenda, it was clear that it had not involved the proper stakeholders in the beginning of the process. Mr. Boles said public agencies are different than other entities, and often the City as a ~ municipality has adopted a "sales" strategy that he objected to. Mr. Nicholson said there may be some kind of appropriate activity to employ, but it would require a delicate definition if it was not to be destructive to the process. Mr. Rutan said as a practical matter, it was difficult to involve everyone in the process. He agreed with Mr. Nicholson that if the City must e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November I, 1990 Page 7 , - -- ----- conduct a "selling" campaign, it indicated that the proper people were not e involved in the process. Mr. Rutan said ideally the solution would be to create an in-depth public involvement process so that the public information process was truly informational, and not a sales pitch. Mr. Nicholson said that a test of such information was that it embraced all well-developed, valid points of view and could still sustain the result desired. Mr. Rutan agreed. Ms. Rich said that the disillusionment referred to by Mr. Nicholson was fos- tered by the community goals conferences. There is an enormous gap between goals and realizations at times. She said if the committee could avoid that gap in the process, it would be useful to its ultimate success. Goals by themselves are nothing, and she wished to focus on financial issues in order to let people know that without money, no special interest group or single individual will get what they want. Mr. Gleason discussed the process that the committee might follow. He said were the committee to gain consensus among the Budget Committee and City Council regarding what the issue is, it could serve as a steering group to identify other groups to check with to ensure that those groups recognized the issue in the same way. Mr. Gleason said that after that is done, the committee could start another consensus ring. He said the process is both iterative and interactive: The committee will continue to need to keep test- ing reality with the community to ensure that the policymakers and community move forward together. He cited the library as a successful example of such a process. The council has gone to the community and asked it what it want- e ed, and then returned to the community with the results of that discussion to confirm its perception. If the committee has a good testing system and reaches a point where it could agree on what the desired goal was, it could either act or return to the people for a vote. Mr. Gleason encouraged the committee to keep an open mind regarding downsizing the organization, but cautioned against downsizing by "watering the soup." He said the outcome of such an action could result in public anger and disillusionment, as it will mean the closure of facilities and the public will believe such action was punitive. He predicated some incident would bring home the lack of public resources to the.community, and that incident will result in public anger. Any downsizing decision should be rational, logical, and complete, and should not shred the relationship between the City and community. Mr. McLoud said everyone at the table recognized that there was a problem, although not all people would have the same solution. He believed that the first thing the committee needed to do was to get the community to agree that there was a problem. This meant that the committee needed to share informa- tion with the community. Mr. McLoud said all Budget Committee members could carry the message to the community that there is a problem, and then the committee could focus on what to do next. A variety of methods could be used to collect input from the community, and the committee would then have agree- ment among the stakeholders that there is a problem. Mr. McLoud said once the community agrees there is a problem, solutions would "stumble over them- selves." Strategic planning in an abbreviated format could follow the commu- e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 8 nity discussion. Mr. McLoud said until the community believes there is a e problem, the committee has two problems. Mr. Boles asked if the committee was prepared to ask the SPC to make a pro- posal reflecting the discussion that had occurred. Ms. Eaton said the SPC will meet after the presentation and committee discussion to prepare a recom- mendation to the full committee. Mr. Perry said he was opposed to Mr. McLoud's proposal because it was merely an invitation to the community to tell the City to cut its staff. He said he preferred the corporate model described by Dr. luke. Mr. Perry said that while the community has been aggressive in describing the city's attractions to encourage people to come to Eugene, he questioned how many residents were aware of all the good things that existed in the community. Mr. Perry said the committee could help to raise the demand for such amenities to generate support for additional revenues to fund those amenities. The Chancellor of Higher Education, for example, has not discussed cutting staff; rather, he is going around the state pointing out to people that they have a great thing going that they do not want to lose, and is asking for $15 million for facul- ty salaries. The Chancellor is not saying "bigger"; he is saying "better." Mr. Perry felt it was important to make people realize that Eugene is a great place to live. Mr. Boles expressed the hope that the SPC could make a recommendation based on the committee discussion. He said a question yet to be resolved was how long such a process should last? It was his sense that the community did not e have the luxury of time that would allow a 15- to 18-month process. Rather, Mr. Boles felt that a 3- to 9-month process was more appropriate. He said that much beyond that time frame, the City will have its decisions made for it, which he wished to avoid. Ms. Eaton agreed. She said if the committee's goal was to impact the FV93 budget, a short time frame was essential. Ms. McMillen said she did not like the idea of going to the community and saying that there is a financial crisis. She believed that would create low morale in the community. Dr. Luke said the group could agree on the scope of the problem, but it will then need to expand that ring of consensus. He agreed with Mr. Gleason that the process was an iterative one. Dr. luke said that the place to start may be with the Budget Committee. The committee can define the problem, deter- mine where it is going given present trends, and agree on threats to the organization. After that, it could decide how to get the information out to the public. He agreed with Mr. Gleason that the public might perceive what the committee does as punitive. He added that the process may be longer than the committee prefers. Mr. Nicholson said that while there has been discussion of downsizing, there was also the alternative of doing things in a more cost-effective way. He said some departments have shrunk through the adoption of more effective ways of doing business. He thought that approach might result in a less painful set of alternatives. e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 9 ----- e Ms. Rich said the committee may be past the stage of defining the problem. It was clear over the past three years what the future will bring if change does not occur. Dr. luke asked if the group agreed on the problem. He said that Ms. Rich's assumption must be tested, as the committee must be in total agreement about the problem. Mr. Rutan said that there was no agreement among committee members about the problem. Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. Rutan, and said in particular the committee does not agree on the internal and ex- ternal conditions that affect the reality of the situation. Ms. Eaton thanked Dr. luke for his participation. The meeting recessed briefly at 7:10 p.m. The members of the Strategic Plan Committee--Mr. Miller, Ms. Eaton, Mr. Rutan, Mr. Mcloud, and Ms. Rich-- re- convened at 7:15 p.m. to discuss their recommendation to the Budget Commit- tee. Ms. Eaton said that the charge to the SPC was to make a recommendation to the Budget Committee regarding strategic planning. In addition, Ms. Eaton be- lieved that the committee needed to determine a time frame for the recommen- dation, as the Budget Committee does not have the luxury of time. Mr. Gleason suggested that the committee focus on FY93. Staff will bring back a program outline to the committee working under the assumption that the Budget Committee will act as the planning team. The outline will include the neces- sary steps and associated dates as well as suggestions for other groups to be involved. Mr. Gleason said the Phoenix model could be customized for the e City of Eugene. The committee agreed with Mr. Gleason's proposal. Mr. Miller asked how the Bryson model could be integrated into the Phoenix model, pointing out that the City had certain mandated services it must fund. Mr. Gleason said that rather than describe a technical process, he would prefer to design a policy steering group to answer that question as the pro- cess progressed. For example, if the committee developed a consensus about the current situation, it would be the design committee's task to decide what type of community outreach it wished to employ. Mr. Gleason said that the committee may wish to change direction as it moved along, and such a process would give the committee needed flexibility. Mr. Rutan said that while employing the Budget Committee as the planning group for the process made sense on the surface, he pointed out that there will be three new councilors and three new lay Budget Committee members. He wondered if the newly constituted Budget Committee would be too large and too new. Mr. Gleason responded that he too had some reservations that rose from those issues, but he asked how the Budget Committee could be ignored in the process. He said that perhaps a Budget Committee subcommittee could serve as the steering committee, since the Budget Committee was a major stakeholder in the process. Mr. Rutan said that Mr. Miller's continued involvement in the process would be important. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Gleason discussed the issue of staff resources. He pointed out that the same staff team that guided the budget process would be involved in the stra- e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 10 - -- --- tegic planning process. He was also concerned about staff burnout. Mr. e Gleason said that during the recent goals-setting session, the council asked him to bring back a series of policy choices for what Mr. Gleason termed the FY92 "transition" budget in order to focus the Budget Committee on the issue of strategic planning for the FY93 budget. He anticipated that the credibil- ity of the staff, council, and Budget Committee would need to be bolstered by outside help. Additionally, the council has indicated its desire for perfor- mance audits, which the committee will have to contend with. Mr. Gleason pointed out that there have been over 30 public information meetings concern- ing the library, and he anticipated that number was below the number neces- sary for the strategic planning process. He said this will mean that the committee needs a support system that gives the committee the information it needs and makes it possible for it to share with the public information about the environment the City is working under. Data collection and surveys will be a part of the process. Ms. Rich asked if the process would be strictly limited to financial issues. Mr. Gleason did not believe that the public would let the process be so restricted. There will be much input and "1 want" statements. He said that the financial status of the City means that just to play catch-up, the committee will need to downsize the organization and increase revenues. When people hear about revenue increases, they start asking what new programs are being funded. They do not want to hear that services are being stopped and taxes are being increased. Mr. Gleason said that while the committee may not be able to confine the discussion to finan- cial matters, it will be able to attach a price tag and assess the financial impact of all suggestions when those suggestions reach the discussion table. e Mr. McLoud said that if the committee committed itself to a process for FY93, he would have a different attitude toward the FY92 budget. He believed that others on the Budget Committee would share that attitude if it was made clear that the organization was going to go through a transition period prior to the resolution of what Mr. McLoud termed "the big problem." Mr. Miller recalled that Dr. Luke had indicated that the process always takes longer than planned, and asked if it was possible to establish a completion date six months prior to the time actually required. Mr. Wong said it was his experience that the process cannot be done quickly. He pointed out that the final budget documents are assembled in February, and expressed the hope that the process could be completed by December 1991 in order to have an effect on the FY93 budget. Mr. Wong said that while the committee may be able to develop a strategic plan in one year, the issue was, can the commit- tee gain public acceptance of that plan? Mr. Miller suggested that the com- mittee agree to a completion date of November 1991, but anticipate an earlier completion date if possible. Mr. Gleason said the process staff developed would include a major public input process that would entail heavy involvement by committee members, would impact FY93, would include a working team and steering team, and an estimate of resource commitments. Mr. Wong added that based on the City's review of what other cities had done, an external consultant will probably be hired. e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 11 - Ms. Eaton said that the committee's recommendation would be that a work plan e be designed. Mr. Miller said that the committee needed to review a schematic plan. Mr. Wong said staff can put on paper what Mr. Gleason had described. He said in terms of creating a flow chart, such as the Phoenix model, staff would need outside expertise, which would mean a Request For Proposal must be issued. He did not envision completion of that process before January or February 1991. Mr. Gleason said that by November 19, staff will have ready a basic outline of the program and the beginning of the process design. Mr. Rutan asked if the committee would see the proposal before it was reviewed by the Budget Committee. Ms. Eaton asked what the committee could do prior to February. Mr. Gleason said that the Budget Committee can make some basic policy decisions around the FY92 budget and begin to work toward consensus regarding the City's prob- lem. Mr. Mcloud said he would like to review the Request For Proposal prior to issuance. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, "7At~ e Micheal Gleason, City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MNCC/SPC 110190 e MINUTES--Strategic Plan Committee November 1, 1990 Page 12 -