Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003.1208.TCWSM.Minutes TOWN OF FOUNTAIN HILLS MINUTES OF THE WORK-STUDY SESSION OF THE FOUNTAIN HILLS TOWN COUNCIL DECEMBER 8,2003 Mayor Wally Nichols convened the work-study session at 5:04 p.m. ROLL CALL — Present for the roll call were the following members of the Fountain Hills Town Council: Mayor Wally Nichols; Vice Mayor Rick Melendez; Councilmembers Michael Archambault, John Kavanagh, Susan Ralphe, and Leesa Stevens. Also present were Tim Pickering, Town Manager; Carolyn Oberholtzer, Assistant Town Attorney;Dave Latshaw; and Bev Bender,Town Clerk. Councilwoman Nicola was absent. Mayor Nichols advised that the purpose of the December 8 work-study session was to discuss the process for developing a five-year strategic plan for the Town of Fountain Hills. Tim Pickering, Town Manager, addressed the Council and reviewed a memorandum which outlined five different strategic plans that other communities had undergone (mostly in the early '90's) that were helpful in breaking down the different changes and styles of strategic planning undertaken by each community. Santa Clarita had done a short strategic five-year plan by inviting approximately 60 people to serve as leaders in the community in a one-day seminar and then focused their report around the input from the seminar. Other methods were larger, such as those communities with 1,000 to 2,000 individuals involved in the process. Mr. Pickering discussed what strategic planning was (and wasn't)in order to assist the Council to focus on the issues needed to address the process for Fountain Hills. Mr. Pickering informed the Council that strategic planning was a "look into the future" about what individuals thought the community should be like. He noted that it was a relatively slow process, but there was a time deadline for issuance of the report in order to keep the public's interest. He recommended a maximum of two years for the process. He added that decisions had to be made on the following: • Study Period—5 years, 10 years, 30 years • Citizen Participation—small or large, public hearing for input or training volunteers and civic groups • Expense — how much money should be placed into the project. Mr. Pickering advised the Council that currently there were no funds budgeted for the project, i.e. hiring an outside facilitator or using in-house staff resources. The first question Mr. Pickering asked of the Council was whether or not the community should enter into the process of strategic planning. • Councilwoman Stevens indicated that the strategic planning process was past due. • Councilman Archambault indicated that a long-range plan was initiated upon incorporation; but it was not reviewed, and he felt that it rolled the Council into a state of shortsightedness. He suggested working with a five-year plan and then perhaps moving ahead toward a ten-year plan. • Councilwoman Ralphe favored the concept of strategic planning, as she felt that no service or governmental activity could be taken until a roadmap was established for the future. She favored a five- year strategic plan. • Vice Mayor Melendez concurred with his colleagues, recalling the theme of a workshop held by former Scottsdale Manager, Dick Bowers. Mr. Bowers' workshop was split between "values" and "vision" — important aspects in leading citizens and government officials. Vice Mayor Melendez felt that a five- year plan was acceptable, but he suggested that the Fountain Hills study period be a more achievable three-year plan, noting that a great deal of realization would be likely at the beginning of the third year. • Mayor Nichols voiced his support of the strategic planning process, particularly with the current limited resources. • Councilman Kavanagh commented that based on the manner in which the elections were structured, regardless of whether a five-year plan, a ten-year plan, or a thirty-year plan were compiled, it would have a two-year expiration date due to the change in Council members. He added that the Council must create the plan properly and in a manner in which true community sentiment was realized via a scientific rating survey. He also noted that the plan must be realistic and take into account that it could E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Work-Study Session-12-8-03.doc Page 1 of 7 at some time be changed very quickly. He suggested a number of projects needed, i.e., a town hall, better road maintenance,and building Desert Vista Park in the next four to five years for ball fields. Mr. Pickering advised the Council that the question of"Who participates?" would be one of the most important issues, essentially asking the entire community for its priorities. Those priorities, he added, should withstand time so that when the next Council came in, it did not adjust the plan suddenly with new priorities of their own. Mr. Pickering discussed one town manager's method of reviewing responsibilities and strategies with each new council member. He added that the plan would not be effective if the Council simply created it, looked at it, but didn't monitor the progress, complete with a monitoring body to oversee it. He clarified with the Council that it favored a five-year strategic plan. Mr. Pickering discussed "citizen participation", noting that its breadth of study would increase the budget and the time it would take to complete the study. "The more citizen participation, the longer the study period." He then asked the Council what scope and breadth of participation it would like to see, the driving factor in how the study would be compiled. • Vice Mayor Melendez responded that a scientific study was on target, and but that there should be some type of combination of community bases, i.e., arts, conservation, business, seniors, youth. He suggested the need for new ideas/energy in the forum, not remaining consistently with the same individuals. He also noted the importance of including individuals in high school and college in the process. • Councilwoman Ralphe also favored the combination approach, with both the survey and the proposal mentioned by Vice Mayor Melendez. She felt that the Council should obtain the broadest possible citizen input (neighbors, friends, and those never met), or time would be wasted. She added that although expertise should be requested from "movers and shakers" in the community, it should be a time for all citizen input. • Councilman Kavanagh felt that the combination approach would define what was needed in those aforementioned areas, and a general survey could then be given to the general public for prioritizing. • Councilwoman Stevens cautioned that too much citizen input and meetings could create a delay in decision-making, as there would be new members on the Council in six months. She suggested a combination of those who would remain on the Council, those who would be leaving the Council, and the new council members. She suggested a definite timeline for citizen input and formulation of the plan. Mr. Pickering agreed with Councilwoman Stevens indicating that a time period must be set for prioritization. • Mayor Nichols indicated that the broader the participation, the more staying power the plan would have, but the timeline must be streamlined properly. • Councilman Archambault suggested meeting with key groups in the community to identify projects, then meeting with the general public to fine tune those projects and obtain public "buy-in". Mr. Pickering requested direction from the Council as to whether it wished to focus on community leaders or the "man on the street"—or a combination of both. • Vice Mayor Melendez was of the opinion that new faces and talent should be brought in for a broader spectrum. He suggested bringing residents of Eagle Mountain and Fire Rock into the process. • Councilman Kavanagh felt that representatives from clubs should be asked what projects should be initiated, and the process would end with a survey of the man/woman on the street in order to gain their opinion. • Councilman Stevens saw the process as a "visionary process" as opposed to being "project-oriented" and suggested that a survey would not produce the town's "vision". She also added that it was premature to decide in what manner to proceed with citizen participation. Mr. Pickering clarified that the report/survey might include water conservation projects that could be part of the vision for the community, i.e., objectives and visions for the town as opposed to project lists. • Councilman Ralphe commented that whether "visions" or "projects" were discussed, the man on the street should be the primary respondent. She felt that molding the man on the street's ideas from ideas suggested previously would lessen the opportunity for citizens to express their ideas, and that the man on the street's ideas should be the initiating thoughts. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Work-Study Session- 12-8-03.doc Page 2 of 7 • Councilman Archambault agreed with Councilman Kavanagh and Councilwoman Stevens in that the "vision" should be created through discussions with organizations: What would our town look like in five years?How would we like to feel about the town? Low • Councilman Kavanagh noted that "vision" and "projects" could be captured in different sections of the same survey such as a "Sedona" versus a "Tempe", "nightlife" versus "bedroom community" or simply a listing of projects. He reiterated the need to keep from asking people to "pick your top five projects" due to cost variances. • Mayor Nichols expressed the necessity for both "vision" and "mission" statements for the town as well as a complete list of projects that individuals wished for the town. Councilwoman Stevens asked Mr. Pickering how the study would blend in with the retreat. Mr. Pickering reminded the Council that the planning process would take between 1 t/ to 2 years and would not be in time to affect the upcoming budget. He noted that the Council retreat would concern the upcoming fiscal year's projects and priorities, not long-term projects. Councilwoman Stevens asked why "Develop Future Vision" and "Identify Existing Problems and Opportunities" were to be included in the retreat if they were long-term projects. Mr. Pickering indicated that changes could be made and deferred the question to Dave Latshaw, facilitator for the retreat, asking him to explain the difference between the long-term strategic plan and the short-term Council retreat. Mr. Latshaw indicated that the Council was looking at a micro and a macro-the micro being the Council retreat as a preview of what the Council would see as the vision, i.e., What would be the vision of the seven-member Council? What would be its issues and priorities? What would be the goals to establish and what would be the strategies and objectives that would fold into the 2004/2005 budget?Mr. Latshaw continued that the macro was asking many community interests the same questions. Focus groups could be created for various groups: "movers and shakers", community city groups, or general community interests. The difference would be that the established priorities for the 2004/2005 budget (micro) would be folded into the five-year plan (macro). Mr. Pickering stated the retreat would be more focused on the Council's priorities, and the five-year plan would be focused on the community's priorities. Vice Mayor Melendez asked if another retreat could be held in July for the new Council. Mr. Pickering responded that even though the process would not be complete while the current Council was in office, it was important to move toward a plan that would be in place for the long term. Mayor Nichols suggested that outgoing Council members could continue to participate in the strategic planning initiative and serve the community after leaving office. Mr. Pickering reiterated that visioning and strategic planning were not short-term projects and would include setting up a committee, forming different focus groups, asking for public input on each focus item, training volunteers to be facilitators, and digesting the information into a plan. After those projects were completed,each focus group would be reunited to judge how the plans meshed together, and then it would be presented to the Council for approval. He also noted that the Council must be involved throughout the process. Councilwoman Stevens reminded the Council that winter residents would leave for the summer, thus summer focus groups could be counter-productive. Councilman Kavanagh suggested that the implementation of the plan would be the next budget period. Mr. Pickering agreed that the target for completion for the plan should be December 31, 2004, with implementation in the budget of 2005/2006. Mayor Nichols asked Mr. Latshaw if 12— 15 months was a realistic time period for the process. Mr. Latshaw indicated that due to the size of the community, it was a realistic and achievable time period. Mr. Pickering asked for Council opinion on the option of hiring an outside facilitator versus using in-house staff, suggesting that the broader the public participation; would require additional staff commitment and at this time staff would not have the time to complete the process properly. • Councilman Archambault noted that the Fountain Hills General Plan took several years to accomplish, along with input from many professionals and felt that an impartial facilitator could focus on moving the project along with fewer distractions. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Work-Study Session-12-8-03.doc Page 3 of 7 • Councilman Kavanagh stated that outsourcing the survey would cost approximately $3,000 to $4,000, and questioned the need for outsourcing anything over $10,000. He also questioned whether or not the project was worth $20,000 to $30,000, adding that after participating in an extremely expensive project to select the "vision" of the downtown, he felt that he was one of the few who ever remembered the $100,000 consultant study. • Councilwoman Stevens stated that the survey should be outsourced, but partial in-house staff should also be used. • Vice Mayor Melendez agreed that a scientific study was vital to the process but did not want to incur heavy expenses from an outsider, suggesting a combination of outside assistance with in-house staff. • Mayor Nichols felt that the use of an outside individual would keep the project moving and could be hired for $12,000 to $13,000 for the time period required. He suggested that by keeping the total cost between $15,000 and$20,000 the project was doable. • Vice Mayor Melendez asked Mr. Pickering to give the Council an update on the costs, as he felt the Community would not agree with a project over$20,000. Mr. Pickering indicated that they would seek input from outside facilitators to find their cost, but he felt that it was unrealistic to believe that the cost of the project would be under$20,000. He noted that public "buy-in"would take time. He reminded the Council that while the employees were dedicated, staff had suffered a reduction from 100 to 59 employees due to budget cuts and were limited as to the amount of time that could be committed to this project. • Councilman Kavanagh felt that the public input should be derived from the scientific survey, which would cost only approximately $3,000 to $4,000. He continued that a facilitator could be used to formulate the project questions for the survey, but assumed that those projects would include a community pool, future parks development, a performing arts center, trust land, a town hall, downtown development, and road maintenance. He then suggested that the "vision" might include a bedroom community, vibrant business, or an artistic sophisticated community. He suggested that spending $15,000 to add just a few items to the list of potential projects and questions on vision was not cost effective, as the community had been vigorously debating those questions for many years. He felt that the cost for both the facilitator and survey should be approximately $10,000. Mr. Pickering advised that the survey could be done inexpensively, but the facilitator's duties would be to obtain and train 'air volunteers to go into the public to do sessions and workshops with various groups. He noted that there would be more than one instrument(survey)to gather the information needed for the plan. • Councilwoman Stevens expressed her disinterest in discussing the focus or work groups, as she felt she needed more information on cost and what the groups would achieve as it pertained to the survey results. Mr. Pickering suggested that staff could obtain proposals from the private sector with dollar amounts. Councilwoman Stevens then asked if there were only two options available for community input. Mr. Pickering read several different methods of gathering public participation: attitude surveys, town hall meetings, focus groups, etc., each of which came with a price tag. He assumed that if there were a small amount of citizen participation (one survey), it would cost from $3,000 to $4,000 but suggested requesting initial proposals in order to understand the dollar amount of the different levels of citizen participation. The subject of citizen "buy-in" was discussed. Councilwoman Stevens thought that the survey would be the broadest avenue for community input and asked why narrow avenues of input were required. Mr. Pickering responded that citizen "buy-in" would not be accomplished from only one survey. Citizen "buy-in" would come from participation in focus groups; that only opinions/information would come from surveys. Councilman Archambault agreed that the Council needed to determine where the town wanted to focus, and felt that Councilman Kavanagh's suggestions could be the end results; however, the main focus would still be unknown. He suggested that the cost needed to be weighed against the end result. Councilwoman Ralphe suggested that it could be simpler to accomplish the gathering of information via a survey and two evening task force meetings planned either by staff or in conjunction with a consultant. Mr. Pickering responded that two night meetings would not achieve"buy-in"by the community. Councilman Kavanagh voiced his concern over the complexity of the suggestions by staff. He indicated that he 1111) participated as the Fountain Hills representative to the countywide Vision 2000 Project but never even received a final report. He felt that spending $20,000 - $40,000 to buy people in was excessive. He stated his need to E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Work-Study Session-12-8-03.doc Page 4 of 7 know what people want, and that he wanted to give it to them to the best of his ability. He felt that activists in the community were already engaged, and the people who don't have the time would not come out anyway but could be reached through the survey. He agreed with Councilwoman Ralphe to keep it simple and inexpensive. Vice Mayor Melendez asked why people reached through a survey would not "buy in". Mr. Pickering explained that when people take 15 minutes to complete a survey, they don't feel commitment to seeing a particular plan move forward; they don't know the results of the survey or how they have influenced those results. When a facilitator is used, people hear concerns aired by other individuals, and they place priorities. If an individual discovered that their priority was implemented into a plan, they felt that they had contributed. Vice Mayor Melendez asked how to engage Fire Rock or Eagle Mountain residents in the focus group process. Mr. Pickering responded that the focus group arena would assist in getting those residents "brought in" to the process, and more opinions would be received by meeting with Eagle Mountain Homeowners Association versus a few individuals filling out a survey (hard data). Mr. Pickering asked the Council how much citizen "buy in"they wished to pursue. • Councilman Archambault summarized that all members of the Council agreed with formulating a five- year strategic plan, and all agreed that money needed to be spent wisely. He then suggested that a certain value needed to be placed on the plan itself. • Councilwoman Stephens surmised that once the results of the survey were received, "buy in" from the community would be up to the seven council members. The results of the survey would be distributed, and town meetings could be held. She disagreed with citizen participation for the sole purpose of lobbying "buy in". Mr. Pickering responded that a survey process would not be a vision process; the survey process would be to discover the priorities of the community on a given date. He added that the strategic planning process would be to allow the community to discuss what was important to them and that merely discussing survey results could bring about varying opinions of what the survey actually stated. Mr. Latshaw indicated that the strategic planning process had originally come from the private sector and had been adopted by local governments. He continued that one phase of strategic planning not yet discussed was called an "environmental scan"—looking at both internal and external impacts on a given community. In the private sector, a corporation could indicate what they thought was important, but they needed further information about both competitors/customers. An environmental scan would not assume to know what was important to the customers (citizens of Fountain Hills). It would take a look at other factors: What would be the impact on this community in terms of state and federal funding? What would be the impact of various types of legislation? What would be the impact of a relationship with the Indian community? Councilman Kavanagh surmised that Mr. Pickering wished to use both the survey and the focus groups as input points, but he believed that the focus groups were not representative of the population, i.e., special interest groups. He felt that a scientific survey would achieve opinions from a cross section of all residents and asked what would be done if the ideas from the focus groups were different from the scientific survey of the entire town. Mr. Pickering responded that the survey integrity was reliant on the quality of the questions asked; if no questions were asked regarding "preservation" on the survey, no one would know that it would be an opinion. Councilman Kavanagh then suggested that everyone answers "yes" to opinion questions, but to some people it was worth $1,000 and to others it was worth $50 million, always relative. He stated that priorities could be calculated with a survey and noted that focus group opinions might be distorted and not reflective of the communities' input. He suggested that a survey sample of 500 would return a .01% error rate. Councilman Kavanagh then announced that he already knew what the focus groups would want — he wanted to know what the people want. Mr. Latshaw suggested appointing a steering committee to work with the community, i.e., key committee chairs who would be connected through the mayor. That steering committee would work with the focus groups, do the homework, and do the environmental scan. He suggested that a scientific survey would never ask, "Are you for preservation, or are you not?"A scientific survey would ask a series of questions based on factual information: "How would the cost impact you in terms of your average residential tax rate; and given that information, how would that affect the ratio of the town's debt, and how would you feel about that?" L. Councilwoman Stevens advised that a survey had been taken before the mountain bond election, and that survey went into finances with great results. She then suggested returning to that company for compilation of the survey. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Work-Study Session- 12-8-03.doc Page 5 of 7 Vice Mayor Melendez felt that the success of the project depended upon preparation, presentation, and marketing. He reminded the Council that out of 14,000 registered voters, only 5,000 voted in the last election. He then indicated his interest for the future of Fountain Hills was in the 10,000 who did not vote. Vice Mayor Melendez clarified that there were many people who did not feel that they were part of the town, i.e., young people, professionals, engineers, mothers, and senior citizens and asked how to get those people to be more Idr participative in the public policy process. Mr. Pickering responded that initiating only a survey would not reach those individuals but that performing other methods of public input (town hall meeting, focus groups) might reach them. He asked Vice Mayor Melendez if it was his opinion that all methods of public input should be used, but that the cost should be minimized. Vice Mayor Melendez summarized that he wanted to get the most people involved at the lowest cost. Mayor Nichols also wanted to get as many people involved as possible, including those individuals who would cite their reasons for moving to the Town of Fountain Hills. Mayor Nichols felt that the town was currently not touching a lot of people, and that the cost should be kept under control but that it would be amortized over a period of five years. Mr. Pickering summarized the previous discussion stating that the council members felt that only a survey should be done. Councilman Kavanagh clarified that he felt groups should be solicited for their opinions (by staff) as opposed to focus groups held by facilitators. The issues obtain by the focus groups could be given to the individuals writing the survey. Mr. Pickering felt that $20,000 was not too high a cost for an effective public input program, as a three-month contract with a public relations firm cost $25,000. Councilman Kavanagh expressed his concern that more people would be "bought out" of the system by spending $20,000 to $40,000 on the study itself, adding that if the study cost more than$10,000, he would not vote for it. Mr. Pickering emphasized Mayor Nichols' point that the town would be investing in the project over time, a long-term program. Councilman Kavanagh reiterated that a scientific survey with reasonable input as to what should go on the survey could be purchased for under $10,000. Councilman Kavanagh clarified that if it were a scientific survey with staff conducting focus groups, it should cost under$10,000.Mr. Pickering reiterated that only 59 full-time employees were on staff, and that staff could not absorb the additional load; one- or two-day seminars could be conducted with staff, but the "buy-in" would require an outside consultant to train volunteers to host focus groups. Councilwoman Stevens clarified that there were three parts of the process being discussed, a "pre-survey", a "survey", and a "post-survey". She noted that Council was in agreement only in the "survey" area and asked for more time to ponder the issues before continuing the conversation. Vice Mayor Melendez asked what impact new council members would have on the plan goals and objectives if the Council agreed to commence with the project at this time. Mr. Pickering responded that if funds had been budgeted, a facilitator had been contracted, and the project had commenced, there would be minor changes due to the contract's scope of work; however, prior to the signing of the contract a new council could have a major impact on the plan by changing the parameters of the project itself. He then offered to obtain a full range of proposals for cost and procedure and return to the Council for their direction. Councilman Kavanagh suggested that the Town engage the services of Mr. Merrill at ASU to complete the survey project separately from the rest of the process. Councilman Archambault commented that cost was becoming more important in the discussion than the result of the process itself. He suggested that Council was struggling with how to achieve the five-year plan, and how much money the Council wanted to invest into the plan and felt that the purpose of the meeting was to decide whether or not to move forward to develop a five-year plan; not agree on all points at this time. Mayor Nichols agreed that the Council needed to be happy with the process —then obtain bids and comments, formulate costs, and discuss the project once again. Vice Mayor Melendez noted that three and one-half of the five points were agreed upon, i.e., study period of five years, citizen participation in a scientific survey and focus groups, and partial facilitator usage. He then 441) proposed that Council discuss the subject in more detail at the retreat. E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Work-Study Session-12-8-03.doc Page 6 of 7 Councilwoman Ralph agreed that the output of the process was most important. She also suggested that more than one survey company be polled for their input. Councilwoman Stevens requested that Roy Kinsey be called for input regarding the origination and implementation of the mountain preservation survey. L. Mr. Pickering thanked the Council for their input on the subject of the strategic planning process. Councilman Stevens MOVED to adjourn the meeting. The motion was SECONDED by Councilwoman Ralphe and PASSED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. /// TOWN OF FO TAIN HILLS i By: W. J. , Mayor ATTEST AND • PREPARED BY: r_ ;:/• .''` Bevelyn J. Benders,Town Clerk CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Work-Study Meeting held by the Town Council of Fountain Hills on the 8th day of December 2003. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and that a quorum was present. DATED this 15th day of January 2004. _ ' Bevelyn J. Bender,•fiown Clerk L E:\BBender\Documents\Current Minutes 2003\Work-Study Session-12-8-03.doc Page 7 of 7