The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSPAC.2012.0111.Minutes - 1 TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING January 11,2011 AGENDA ITEM#1—CALL TO ORDER Chair Koester Thomas called the meeting to order in Council Chambers at Town Hall at 3:03 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#2—ROLL CALL Present for roll call were the following members of the Strategic Planning Advisory Commission: Chair Audra Koester Thomas, Vice Chair Curt Dunham, Commissioner Denise Atwood, Commissioner Nick DePorter, Commissioner Barry Spiker, and Youth Commissioner Sarah Traylor. Commissioner Mike Dooley and Commissioner Alan Magazine were excused. Also present were Interim Town Manager Julie Ghetti and Recording Secretary Shaunna Williams. AGENDA ITEM#3—CALL TO THE PUBLIC No one appeared at the Call to the Public. AGENDA ITEM #4 - CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2011 AND DECEMBER 5,2011 Vice Chair Dunham MOVED to approve the October 24, 2011 and December 5, 2011 meeting minutes and Commissioner Atwood SECONDED the motion,which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present. At the request of Chair Koester Thomas, Interim Town Manager Ghetti acquiesced to moving Agenda Item#6 up on the agenda. AGENDA ITEM #6 — DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF SPAC'S ONGOING WORK PROGRAM, INCLUDING A DISCUSSION WITH ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY'S NEW VENTURE GROUP REGARDING PARTNERING FOR POTENTIAL RESEARCH ON ECONOMIC CLUSTERS SUITABLE TO FOUNTAIN HILLS Chair Koester Thomas acknowledged the presence of Professor Dan Brooks and two of his associates from ASU's New Venture Group and thanked them for attending. Following an overview by Chair Koester Thomas on a potential partnership with the New Venture Group to research the feasibility of developing the health care, medical and biotech sectors in Fountain Hills, she recapped discussion that have occurred thus far between members of SPAC and the New Venture Group. She then invited Professor Brooks to address the Commission. Professor Brooks stated that the New Venture Group has interest in pursuing the research project and outlined their work process. He stated that he would provide a Scope of Work, including deliverables and a timetable,and that they would provide a Non-disclosure Agreement and treat all information as proprietary. Both Chair Koester Thomas and Commissioner DePorter thanked Professor Brooks and his associates for attending the meeting and they were excused. Chair Koester Thomas noted that Council approval of this proposed work program would need to be obtained before moving forward. Page 1 of 3 Chair Koester Thomas stated that she met recently with Councilmember Tait Elkie, who reiterated his desire to have SPAC pursue a work program to create a Public Safety District in Fountain Hills. She once again noted that SPAC must get Council permission and endorsement to pursue any work program. Commissioner Spiker inquired about the budget to pursue the research project with the New Venture Group. Commissioner DePorter stated that the New Venture Group would work pro bono and waive expenses. Vice Chair Dunham MOVED to authorize Chair Koester Thomas to approach the Council for approval on the proposed work program and, if approval is obtained, further authorize Chair Koester Thomas to request that ASU's New Venture Group prepare a Scope of Work to be presented to SPAC as soon as possible. Commissioner Atwood SECONDED the motion,which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present. Chair Koester Thomas stated that Commission would return to Agenda Item#5. AGENDA ITEM#5—INTERIM TOWN MANAGER'S UPDATE a. Goal Setting Retreat—Ms. Ghetti stated that a Council Retreat will be held on January 26 in which a 6- month economic update will be provided, progress on current year goals will be reviewed, Council's discussion from the November retreat pertaining to financial stability will be reaffirmed, new programs and initiatives will be discussed, a first draft of FY12-13 budget will be presented to Council,and Council Goals for FY12-13 will be established. She noted that the draft budget will be taken out to groups in the community to obtain feedback. b. Economic Update—Ms. Ghetti reviewed the Economic Update that had been previously distributed(copy attached). AGENDA ITEM #7 — DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS TO STRATEGIC PLAN ital 2010 Chair Koester Thomas stated that SPAC's proposed revisions to Strategic Plan 2010 were presented to the Council at the December 15, 2011 Council Meeting. She recapped that meeting, stating that SPAC's process and communication were questioned by Mayor Schlum and Councilmember Leger and that the agenda item was subsequently tabled. She further noted that there was some indication from the Council that the proposed revisions may be further discussed during the Council Retreat at the end of January. AGENDA ITEM #8 — DISCUSSION REGARDING RECOMMENDING PRIORITIES AND COUNCIL GOALS FOR FY 12-13 BUDGET PROCESS PER STRATEGIC PLAN 2010 Chair Koester Thomas reviewed and asked for feedback on the draft memorandum that had been prepared pursuant to SPAC's discussion at the December 5,2011 meeting and was previously distributed(copy attached). She apologized for neglecting to include the names of Commissioner Atwood and Youth Commissioner Traylor on the signature line and stated that the memorandum had been corrected. She also pointed out that subsequent to distribution of the memorandum Commissioner Spiker had suggested continuing to consider an ongoing study of Town efficiencies(Lean Six Sigma). Vice Chair Dunham suggested editing the memorandum to add an initiative to pursue a partnership with ASU's New Venture Group under Strategic Direction EV 4. He also proposed that the word"argue"be replaced with the word"stress"in the last paragraph of the memorandum. Commissioner DePorter suggested softening the language in the last sentence of the memorandum by eliminating Page 2 of 3 the first half of the sentence which reads, "However, because Council did not take action, and instead elected to table consideration of these directions," and starting the sentence with the words, "SPAC would simply like to reiterate..." Commissioner Atwood alternatively suggested that the last sentence of the memorandum read, "Council elected to table consideration of these directions. At this time SPAC would simply like to reiterate...." Commissioner Atwood also suggested that the proposed study on Town efficiencies be kept separate from Council priorities for FY12-13 so as to avoid delaying the process of moving the memorandum forward. Chair Koester Thomas pointed out that by separating the study on Town efficiencies from Council priorities for FY12-13,the proposed study on Town efficiencies could move forward prior to the start of the new fiscal year. The consensus of the Commission was that Commissioner Spiker should pursue a meeting with Ms. Ghetti and the Mayor to explore the proposed study on Town efficiencies. Chair Koester Thomas stated that she would advise the Mayor that Commissioner Spiker may be contacting him. Chair Koester Thomas reviewed the proposed edits to the memorandum(as outlined above). Commissioner DePorter MOVED to accept the memorandum as revised,and Commissioner Spiker SECONDED the motion,which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present. AGENDA ITEM#9—SCHEDULE UPCOMING MEETING DATES It was noted that SPAC meetings are currently scheduled on February 6,2012 and March 5,2012 at 3:00 p.m. An additional SPAC meeting was scheduled on Monday,April 2,2012 at 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ITEM#10—ADJOURN Commissioner Spiker MOVED to adjourn at 4:13 p.m. and Commissioner Atwood SECONDED the motion, which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY by those present. Shaunna Williams,Recording Secretary Page 3 of 3 �A Yry� Memo ( To: Julie Ghetti, Interim Town Manager CC: Shaunna Williams From: Strategic Planning Advisory Commission Date: January 11, 2012 Re: Recommended FY 12-13 Priorities A successful strategic plan is one that is integrated into the daily operations of an organization. In a municipal setting,staff and town partners use the strategic plan to develop proposals and initiatives that implement elements of the strategic plan; Council uses>,the plan to evaluate all proposals and decisions. ' ",'`" The unanimously adopted Strategic Plan 2010 outlines en annual process by which the plan is reviewed,and if needed revised, in order to prepare Councilrfor ifs annual goal setting retreat and subsequently,the towns budget process. This review process begins in earnest each faly.wherrthe Strategic Planning'Advisory Commission(SPAC)reviews the plan and, if needed,, recommends any potential revisions. In October 2011 at its joint meeting, Council was nofifled that SPAC would be delivefirig Its recommendations by the end of the year. As such,ort December 15,SPAC presented three recommended strategic direction additions to the plan; action on.''fhese recommendetloris was (, tabled by Council. In addition to its annual review, Strategic Plan 20:10asks SPAC toprovide recommendations for the next year's action plan. In the fall and-winter of 2011 12, SPAC"i jscussed what priorities it would recommend to assisf Council in its budget and action-:plan process. The end result of this work is the identification of the following strategic directions SP'ACrecommends as community priorities for FY 12-13 in some eases, SPAC has:also included'"suggested initiatives that could forward the priority directions. In summary,SPAC continues to believe efforts in financial sustainability, economic deve[opmertt'and citizen communication and engagement are fundamental town priorities especially during our prolonged economic downturn. Priority: Financlal Sustainabili reduce,cut or dela" expenses; revenue enhancements) • l_1 Maintain a 5 year capitalimprovements'plan that includes programmed maintenance y; protects. • 1 2;il ower the reliance'an state reyenues by developing a locally controlled, reliable fundinb ource for infrastructure maintenance. Suggested initiative:continue to investigate,the creation ofa property tax to support town operations,perhaps through a public safet"q'istrict • 13 Maintain a'current condition assessment of all roadways and sidewalks and prioritize and implement maintenance efforts to minimize costly reconstruction. • 19 Build a protected,:fund to finance the major periodic maintenance of community facilities. Priority: Economic Development • EV 1 Develop a comprehensive economic development strategy for the Town's future and work with our partners to forward economic growth and awareness. Suggested initiative:complete and adopt a town economic development plan/strategy 1 . • i 0 • EV 2 Developand maintain a balanced, equitable, sustainable and local financing 1 structure to support the Town's core government services at desired service levels. • EV 4 Promote retention, expansion and relocation of quality businesses. • EV 6 Identify a slate of economic development tools and strategies(including tax incentives,fee abatements, etc.)to stimulate economic growth. • ELC 5 Encourage access to higher learning opportunities or the establishment of an educational or training campus within our community. Priority: Citizen Communication and Engagement • CR 6 Evaluate customer satisfaction with Town services on a regular basis and implement appropriate service improvements. Suggested initiative:conduct a statistically valid service satisfaction survey with citizens(SPAC's in (., research indicates a survey could cost approximately$25,000-30,000] ,:yrF • CR 7 Communicate the role of local government,an i learly define the trade-offs between service levels and amenities and the asSGi'a't'eosts so residents can make informed choices. T •'' il''Ir- • C 3 Genuinely solicit and consider public:atld` takeholder feedback as part of the decision-making process. 4;-_�y iViNr, AniiSPAC would also note the new strategic direction`s1tTecommerlded for adoptiOTi,,t y Council in December 2011 are important to forwarding the comm1nityy vis[on and in particular,SPAC would argue they should have been conside{edas FY 12 13 prlq it�gs: However, becauseCouncil did jo t not take action, and instead, electedabe,gonsideration these directions,at this time SPAC would simply like to reiterate its supporfforaddi„ggg these thibi 4�{ ections to Strategic Plan 2010. t :! y 4r'R�.3�1i NV' Respectfully submittod'byc i F ,^ f`<= ��„ r ( . 1 41111, Audra Koester ThQr2as"Chalr {` ii " ,•° ,�'it Curt Dunham, Vice'Cfi it Niel. Iri'. ;;; `.- Nick DePorter VAN,+'� gi: ' r. .L fia ,r Mike Dooley „, 0rF ,• tlN24, Alan Magazlr4e ` 1' ' �,.:`1! Barry/Sptico=-=-v" t., "Ati,T� =.W,t9r:•- L 4i AV 'ON AA lii3iNg1,14A7 —— .-._._......_......_......._....-.__..... ( ) Ill Page 2 J 4 , i I ECONOMIC UPDATE-STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION-JANUARY 11, 20120 ' Current. ear.Yteienues--Al1::Fun ysi. .-._.................:..........,-f:_:. x a:f'th {'i:,:a::a:nna :a„!;J:; ,.,,,!,?:i{,,,,t;!: ;......_......._:......._................_.::! !:{:E:;::::::...:::::: i`:I:S::JG.S J:t:Ji:i,u:[:•t:....;,....ii......_.........................::::�:,c_..:giii::��:ks::0 :,:..:.x.:::�::::.:.�:_.:::::.::�::.:E.._.._... ..............:... ...._.............._...__........:, r.u,s:i.....:[r ..«:':' r s::x2,ii:i:ii:,..« ,.�....�.v,........i....i,..................J....,.-..............1..._.,......l.S............;.._:...:..:_:.............:�::. ............... ......:...... ..........................i..........._....... .,.:.,.z. ,i.E i........iJ.-z,.:..:J;x,....;........t.i...it.ti....._.._: .:.:-.:.i::::::::E:::.i.:. L:::::::::::::i....ge,:: .................._.t...:..........._........-i::...........................:: pecembec i- ISecem .e ,iii 61Yfontb ..lo:of_ .. eopg ......:; ii:i:ii�::::::::r::::�:::::r,::::�•:� :FY2t�1b11...._:,_F'�2bi�J.�'�..-:„ ..._'B:Adge>=, s: ;:B:udget :;c{!:;l1=a1Fs:_;=:; General Fund $6,018,170 $5,819,901 $6,312,240 92.2% -3.3% HURF $692,510 $568,206 $581,226 97.8% -17.9% Dev Fees $225,504 $1,593 $44,298 3.6% -99.3% Special Revenue $164,148 $163,137 $750,000 21.8% -0.6% Downtown Development $137,849 $125,268 $136,068 92.1% -9.1% Debt Svc MPC $799,452 $247,948 $412,602 60.1% -69.0% Debt Svc GO $763,554 $775,883 $720,051 107.8% 1.6% OP $208,729 $347,452 $7,036,046 4.9% 66.5% _........$9.,Q.09,..6 .. ... ..$8,049,3$:8 ..$1.592,530 ..1. ,..{AZ%i.. . MQ.17:* ............................... a:.:n:.,.::::;::::::r.: .::=:::s.,......, .:._...i_...^ .:..r:.:::'•y:-rtt::mr..::r.L:::.,..................r._:. i::::r:;:: :�:,.ri:•:,,.,._'s•rr.:rv::.:::::::::::-!s:�i$ti:{S?i € ........._..................................... -turent:: ear' n unrs':rAllaids=x: _.-.;,;...;:J :::::a::i:'::::,:::-••.:1::r"•it,i' ; €?s: _......... .......-..•..._............. ::: ::::: ,:.: ::: ::::::::r.:::::::r.............-a::;:::-,:'::.......-,.......: ..«i i.._.,..i......_......_....._........J.:.:.:..::•J.:er:r........ Change December December, 6 Month % of from Et on El201`d,1<,ll-: - ..'FY2d11 i2;;i! ,'..Budget....:."... ...B:unget.:.: Yeah; _ General Fund $6,230,545 $5,621,272 $6,298,076 89.3% -9.8% ( HURF $588,870 $523,812 $639,149 82.0% -11.0% Dev Fees $64,764 P $6,575' $35,000 18.8% 0.0% 4 Special Revenue $204,441 $174,317 $768,538 22.7% -14.7% Economic Development $47,052 $29,554 $105,682 28.0% -37.2% Debt Svc MPC $195,453 $113,635 $2,005,974 5.7% -41.9% Debt Svc GO $177,926 $156,786 $720,512 21.8% -11.9% CIP $492,726 $320,652 $8,520,020 3.8% -34.9% G _$$OILIIS $6,946`,603�>tttd Taal,Al1:Futld&.......: .. ... . :,$,.1,-9,092,9d) ,..::36 4%a':: . .131,ik .' FY201 12•..Local$ales Tax Revenues l Change. �. rl , z otenaber N( Memb er Pen od '% of from Pnor .i.iE... .. .... .i,,. :..:::.1i.`XZ��.0..11-�-- >�`1(201,�..42 ....:.$irdge:E....:_.. .. Budget....: ._. dear: ;;: Construction $246,714 $276,276 $72,564 380.7% 12.0% Transportation/Utilities $714,540 $675,910 $615,572 109.8% -5.4% Wholesale/Retail $1,269,028 $1,258,779 $1,544,452 81.5% 0.0% Restaurant/Bars $201,029 $201,055 $221,190 90.9% 0.0% Real Estate $270,077 $261,123 $286,120 91.3% -3.3% Services $101,466 $106,470 $107,864 98.7% 4.9% Misc. $200,819 $229,078 $292,500 78.3% 14.1% GT lk i. . 3 d3 ... $386 : .$ 14Q262 ... 58a " i daxand. cta.A vukkp ;.: . E;:a; , ; 7 .. : ,p0 , 1 , :,,,. 3 , i `; 9 .?'= L c.__ 4