HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/1992 Target Setting SessionCITY OF LAUDERDALE, MINNESOTA
TARGET SETTING SESSION
AUGUST 8, 992
FACILITATOR: JAMES F. MILLER
COMMITMENTS FOR EFFECTIVE
GOAL SETTING
• PARTICIPATE
• BE CANDID
• BE CONSTRUCTIVE
• BE IMPERSONAL
• ACCEPT OWNERSHIP
1
IF A CITY TEAM IS GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL, GOALS ARE CRITICAL
GOALS SHOULD:
• PROVIDE COMMUNITY DIRECTION FOR THE FUTURE
- REDUCE CRISIS MANAGEMENT
- REDUCE PERSONAL CONFLICT
INCREASE OWNERSHIP OF DECISIONS
- INCREASE PROBLEM RECOGNITION
- ENSURE CONTINUITY OF ACTION
• INCREASE PERFORMANCE
- DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN WHAT IS DOABLE AND WHAT ISN'T
- PRIORITIZE WORKLOAD
- EVALUATE ESSENTIAL PERFORMANCE
GOALS SHOULD:
• BUILD A CITY TEAM
- ENHANCES UNDERSTANDING OF ROLES
- BUILDS TRUST AND OPENNESS
- CONCENTRATES ON PROBLEM SOLVING
- CLARIFIES ACCOUNTABILITY
• INCREASE PRIDE AND CONFIDENCE
- PERMITS AND ENCOURAGES COUNCIL TO LEAD
IMPROVES CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT
ENHANCES COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND RESOURCES
3
GOALS:
A FOUNDATION FOR EFFECTIVENESS
GOALS CAN BE DIVIDED INTO THREE ELEMENTS:
• VISION STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY'S
FUTURE
• TARGETS SPECIFIC ACTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED
WITHIN THE LIFE CYCLE OF THIS COUNCIL
• ACTION PLANS STRATEGY OF WHAT IS DESIRED,
WHAT WILL BE DONE,
WHO WILL DO IT,
AND WHEN.
4
ISSUES HANDLED EFFECTIVELY
ISSUE COUNCIL STAFF TOTAL
HIRING FULL-TIME ADMINISTRATOR 4 2 6
ROAD TURN BACK 4 4
TIF REFINANCING 1 1 2
ROSEVILLE CIRCULATOR 1 1 2
COUNCIL TEAMWORK 2 2
NEW TRACTOR 1 1
AUDIT 1 1
COUNCIL MEETING EFFECTIVENESS 1 1
5
ISSUES MOST FEEL GOOD ABOUT
• CITY ADMINISTRATOR - CREATING POSITION AND HIRING
- TOOK COURAGE
- RESPONDED QUICKLY
+ ADEQUATE INFORMATION
+ OPTIONS
- RESULTED IN COST SAVINGS
+ MORE FOCUSED STAFF
(COUNCIL IMPRESSED BY PROCESS - STAFF BY IMPACT)
6
ISSUES MOST FEEL GOOD ABOUT
e ROAD TURNBACK
- A REAL EXAMPLE OF TEAMWORK - COUNCIL, STAFF, COMMUNITY
- "LITTLE ENGINE THAT COULD" SYNDROME
(IDENTIFIED BY COUNCIL, NOT STAFF)
ISSUES HANDLED INEFFECTIVELY
ISSUE
PARKING ORDINANCE
BRIMHALL SCHOOL REQUEST
COUNCIL STAFF TOTAL
2
2
1 3
1 3
ROSEHILL POND 1 1
CODE REVISION 1 1
INFRASTRUCTURE 1 1
BUDGET 1 1
TRUSBILT 1 1
1858 WALNUT STREET 1 1
COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR
INFORMATION 1 1
COUNCIL PLAYING FAVORITES 1 1
COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT IN
OPERATIONS 1 1
STAFF REORGANIZATION 1 1
8
ISSUES NOT EVERYONE
FEELS GOOD ABOUT
• PARKING ORDINANCE
- REASONS CITED:
+ HISTORY OF BEING INEFFECTIVE
+ ALWAYS BEEN A DIFFICULT ISSUE - LACK OF GOOD OPTIONS
+ FEAR OF PUBLIC REACTION
+ PERSONAL BIAS
+ UNWILLINGNESS OF COUNCIL TO STAND BEHIND
+ NOT AS IMPORTANT AS OTHER ISSUES
+ EMPLOYEE CONFLICTS
+ LACK OF CLEAR GOAL
ISSUES NOT EVERYONE
FEELS GOOD ABOUT
• PARKING ORDINANCE
® RAISES THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
+ HAVE YOU ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE ISSUE?
+ HAVE YOU ACHIEVED CONSENSUS ON THE ISSUE?
+ DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
+ DO YOU HAVE THE WILLINGNESS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
+ IS THE TIMING APPROPRIATE OR SHOULD YOU WAIT UNTIL
EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNCIL TEAM IMPROVES?
ISSUES THAT NOT EVERYONE
FEELS GOOD ABOUT
• REQUEST FOR FUNDING - BRIMHALL SCHOOL
- REASONS CITED:
- NOT ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE GOOD DECISION
- MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO COOPERATE WITH ROSEVILLE/FALCON
HEIGHTS
CREATED A NEGATIVE IMPRESSION
- LACK OF DECISION OWNERSHIP
ISSUES THAT NOT EVERYONE
FEELS GOOD ABOUT
• REQUEST FOR FUNDING - BRIMHALL SCHOOL
- RAISES THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
- DID YOU ANALYZE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE OPTIONS?
- DOES THE STRUCTURE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS AFFORD EFFICIENT
AND ORDERLY DEBATE OF ISSUES?
- ARE ISSUES GENERALLY PRESENTED IN A TIMELY FASHION?
- SHOULD THERE BE MORE ATTENTION TO DEFINING
UPCOMING AGENDAS?
ISSUES HANDLED WITH
MIXED PERCEPTIONS
COUNCIL STAFF
ISSUE EFFECTIVELY INEFFECTIVELY EFFECTIVELY INEFFECTIVELY
EMPLOYEE
TERMINATION 3 2 2
ALLEYS 1 1
ISSUES HANDLED WITH
MIXED PERCEPTIONS
• TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEE
- EFFECTIVE REASONS:
+ COUNCIL, STAFF, ATTORNEY WORKED TOGETHER
+ TOOK ADEQUATE TIME
+ IDENTIFIED AND CAREFULLY EXAMINED OPTIONS
+ REMAINED UNIFIED
+ HANDLED PROFESSIONALLY
14
ISSUES HANDLED WITH
MIXED PERCEPTIONS
• TERMINATION OF EMPLOYEE
- INEFFECTIVE REASONS:
+ CHAIN OF COMMAND WAS AMBIGUOUS
+ INADEQUATE PERSONNEL POLICIES
+ INFORMATION NOT PRESENTED BEFORE THERE WAS
NO RECOURSE
- RAISES THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
+ ARE REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES CLEAR?
+ ARE JOB DESCRIPTIONS AND, THEREFORE, EXPECTATIONS
CLEAR AND PRECISE?
+ ARE PERSONNEL POLICIES ADEQUATE?
ISSUES HANDLED WITH
MIXED PERCEPTIONS:
• ALLEYS
- EFFECTIVE REASONS:
+ ACTED ASA TEAM
+ NOT CONSTRAINED BY PAST COUNCIL DECISIONS
- INEFFECTIVE REASON:
+ PROCRASTINATION
- RAISES THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
+ WHAT ARE IMPLICATIONS IF YOU ADDRESS INFRASTRUCTURE
AND/OR CODE ISSUES?
+ HOW IMPORTANT IS THIS ISSUE?
+ IS IT SOLVABLE?
ISSUES REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL ATTENTION
• COUNCIL STAFF RELATIONS
- CLARIFYING ROLES
- CLARIFYING EXPECTATIONS
- DEVELOPING "TEAM CONCEPT"
• STRATEGIC PLAN
- DO WE WANT TO BE/CAN WE BE A SEPARATE COMMUNITY?
- IF SO, HOW WOULD IT BE DIFFERENT THAN TODAY?
- WHAT ACHIEVABLE ACTIONS DO WE TAKE TO GET THERE?
17
ISSUES REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL ATTENTION
® COMMUNITY RELATIONS
- MORE INVOLVEMENT IN FORMAL PROCESSES
(PUBLIC HEARINGS, ETC.)
- USE OF CITIZEN TASK FORCES
- ENHANCING COMMUNITY SPIRIT AND IDENTITY
18
PRIORITIES
ISSUE COUNCIL STAFF TOTAL
1. BUDGET 3 4 7
2. INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS 2 3 5
3. ORDINANCES 3 1 4
4. STAFFING 1 2 3
5. COUNCIL/STAFF RELATIONS 1 2 3
6. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 2 2
7. PUBLIC SAFETY 2 2
8. HIRING NEW ATTORNEY 1 1
9. ROSEHILL POND 1 1
19
PRIORITIES
ISSUE COUNCIL STAFF TOTAL
10. PARKING ORDINANCE 1 1
11. PARK BOARD 1 1
12. PERSONNEL POLICIES 1 1
13. HOUSING DETERIORATION 1 1
14. INDEPENDENCE OF
LAUDERDALE 1 1
15. RELATIONS WITH OTHER
COMMUNITIES 1 1
16. ALLEYS 1 1
20
PRIORITY ISSUES
BUDGET
• PREPARATION
• CONTENT/FORM
• POLICY ISSUES (TAX LEVY, ETC.)
• SERVICE DELIVERY EFFICIENCY
PRIORITY ISSUES
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS
• ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT CONDITION
• IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS
• REALISTIC FINANCING PLAN
- PROPERTY TAXES
- MSA
- UTILITY CHARGES
• SOMEWHAT DEPENDENT ON STRATEGIC PLAN
22
PRIORITY ISSUES
ORDINANCES
• PRIORITIZE CONCERNS
• REVIEW AND UPDATE ON A REASONABLE SCHEDULE
• ENFORCEABLE
• LINKED TO STRATEGIC PLAN OR SPECIFIC ISSUES
(HOUSING, ETC.)
23
PRIORITY ISSUES
STAFFING
• TIMING
- LOSS OF STAFF MEANS DECLINE IN OUTPUT
- MAY NEED TIME TO ASSESS NEEDS
• LOSS OF ORGANIZATION'S MEMORY
- NEED FOR SYSTEMS TO PROVIDE ONGOING CONTINUITY
- OPPORTUNITY TO FIND NEW WAYS OF OPERATING
• MORALE
• IMPACT ON COUNCIL/STAFF RELATIONSHIP
• DEVELOPMENT
24
PRIORITY ISSUES
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
• POSITIVE EXAMPLES:
- ROSEVILLE CIRCULATOR
- NEWSLETTER
- DAY IN PARK
• UNTAPPED RESOURCE
• HOW DO YOU DEVELOP AN INTEREST
25
PRIORITY ISSUES
PUBLIC SAFETY
• INCREASING COST/% OF BUDGET
• SERVICE EXPECTATIONS
• OPTIONS
PRIORITY ISSUES
COUNCIL/STAFF RELATIONS
• IMPACT OF PERSONNEL TRANSITION
• OWNERSHIP OF DECISIONS
• OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREASED CONTACT
AND COMMUNICATION
27
MUNICIPAL ACTION PLAN
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF MINNETONKA
MARCH, 1985
Investment Policy
DESIRED OUTCOMES
A. Definition of investment policy for Minnetonka
B. Reconstitute Financial Advisory Group to assist in
development of investment policy
CI. ACTION STEPS
Step 1: Staff to develop a charge to Financial Advisory
Group
Step 2: Create Financial Advisory Group to assist in
developing investment policy
Step 3: Council review of recommended investment policy
Step 4: Council decision on investment policy
Step 5: Staff implementation of policy
28
TARGET ISSUE NO 90-2
CIVIC CENTER
I. Target
To complete a review of the Civic Center Master Plan to
include a traffic analysis which will examine the need
for alternate access to the Civic Center site. To make
decisions regarding the City Hall/Ice Arena parking lot
reconstruction project, and acquisition of the
Minneapolis Junior Academy and identify and prioritize
other improvements/facilities for the Civic Center.
II. Desired Outcomes
A. Complete review of the Park Board's recommendation
regarding the Civic Center Master Plan.
B. Review traffic analysis and reach decision
regarding need for alternate access to the site.
C. Decide whether to proceed with the construction of
an expanded and improved City Hall/Ice Arena
parking lot.
D. Negotiate for the acquisition or option to purchase
the Minneapolis Junior Academy.
E. Determine whether to construct other
improvements/facilities (swimming pool,. nature
center) at the Civic Center and include them in the
Capital Improvements Program.
III. Evaluation Criteria
A. Adoption of a revised Civic Center Master Plan and
determination regarding the need for an alternate
access to the Civic Center.
B. Decision regarding the construction of the City
Hall/Ice Arena parking area.
C. Development of a strategy regarding the acquisition
of the Minneapolis Junior Academy.
D. Preparation of an implementation plan and financing
strategy for various Civic Center
improvements/facilities for inclusion in the City's
Capital Improvements Program.
29
Target Issue No. 90-2
Page Two
IV. Discussion
Development of the Civic Center has been a Target Issue
for the City Council during the past several years. In
1988 the Target consisted of a decision regarding the
replacement of the "Bubble" and conducting a review of the
Civic Center Master Plan. During 1989, the Council
decided to replace the "Bubble" with a permanent auxiliary
Ice Arena. This facility was constructed between May and
October and was completed on schedule and within budget.
The Council also asked the Park Board to review the Civic
Center Master Plan to determine whether various
improvements/facilities included in the plan are still
appropriate after five years. The Park Board completed
its review and presented it to the City Council at the
1989 Work Session. The Park Board recommended several
modifications to the original Master Plan including:
1. Acquisition of the Minneapolis Junior Academy to
serve as the City's recreation facility,
2. Construction of a family-oriented outdoor swimming
complex,
3. Completion of the City Hall/Ice Arena parking lot
reconstruction project, and
4. Possibly incorporating a Nature Center into the
Civic Center area.
The Park Board also recommended the amphitheater and large
group picnic areas be deleted from the original Master
Plan design.
After receiving the Park Board's report regarding the
Master Plan, the City Council requested that Martin & Pitz
review their recommendations to determine whether the
suggested modifications could be accommodated on the
site. In addition, Council also expressed concern about
the traffic level from the Civic Center area and asked
that the need for an alternate access into the Civic
Center be reviewed. Martin & Pitz is nearing completion
of its review of the Park Board's recommendations
regarding the Master Plan. The City also retained
Benshoof & Associates to perform an independent traffic
analysis and review alternate access options for the Civic
Center area.
30
Target Issue No. 90-2
Page Three
Once the City Council receives the results of Martin &
Pitz' review and the independent traffic analysis, it will
be important for the City to identify and prioritize the
improvements/facilities that they would like included
within the revised Master Plan. Once these are
determined, the City Council can adopt a revised Master
Plan. While some of the projects are presently included
in the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program, the
Council may wish to establish different priorities for
these projects. Presently, the parking lot redonstruction
is planned for 1990, and other projects such as the
acquisition of the Junior Academy or construction of a
recreation center and an outdoor swimming pool are
scheduled for future years.
Interestingly, based on a Community Survey,there appears
to be •support for all of the facilities at the Civic
Center that were recommended by the Park Board.
Construction of a recreation center, nature center, and
both indoor and outdoor swimming pools were supported by
the majority of citizens responding to the Survey. The
support for these facilities is even stronger if they
could be built without tax increases.
V. Policy Decisions and Actions
Action No. 1: December 13, 1989 Work Session - Council
reviews report from Martin' & Pitz
regarding the Park Board's
recommendations for the Civic Center
Master Plan and the independent traffic
analysis of the Civic Center by Benshoof
& Associates.
Action No. 2: January, 1990 - Adoption of the revised
Civic Center Master Plan,
Action No. 3: February, 1990 - Adoption of the
1990-1994 Capital Improvements Program
which includes a prioritization of
various facilities/improvements for the
Civic Center area.
Action No. 4: March, 1990 - Authorization to hire a
firm to prepare design plans for the
construction of the City Hall/Ice Arena
parking lot reconstruction.
31
Target Issue No. 90-2
Page Four
Action No. 5: June, 1990 - Approval of bids for the
City Hall/Ice Arena parking lot
construction project.
32