Loading...
02/16/1994 CITY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION February 16, 1994 The City Commission of the City of Clearwater met in special session at Clearwater East Library, Wednesday, February 16, 1993 at 2:00 p.m., with the following members present: Rita Garvey Mayor/Commissioner Arthur X. Deegan, II Vice-Mayor/Commissioner Richard Fitzgerald Commissioner Sue A. Berfield Commissioner Fred A. Thomas Commissioner Also present: Elizabeth M. Deptula Interim City Manager Kathy S. Rice Deputy City Manager William C. Baker Acting Assistant City Manager M.A. Galbraith, Jr. City Attorney Sid Klein Police Chief Robert Davidson Fire Chief Scott Shuford Central Permitting Director Pete Yauch Acting Public Works Director Peter Gozza Executive Director, CRA Ream Wilson Parks and Recreation Director Jeff Harper Administrative Services Director Tina Wilson Budget Director Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Carole Greiner Special Assistant to City Manager, Productivity Measurement Jeff Kronschnabl Special Assistant to City Manager, Community Response Team Cynthia Climan Human Resources Specialist Ruth Ann Bramson Ken Van Horis The meeting was called to order at 2:04 a.m. Ruth Ann Bramson indicated Strategic Planning was for a 3-5 year time frame. The Commissioners expressed concern that this may be short-sighted, and it was agreed there are short term and long term issues. Ms. Bramson indicated what needed to be established is 1) the vision of where the City wants to be, 2) the barriers to obtaining that vision, 3) strategies for overcoming those barriers, and 4) tactical action plans. Ms. Bramson indicated they would be addressing the top ten issues from the Community Consensus project, which are: 1) an effective, quality police force; 2) safe neighborhoods, parks and beaches; 3) a community committed to quality education; 4) accessible, high quality medical services; 5) responsive, effective city government; 6) job and economic opportunity for all; 7) high quality fire protection; 8) good planning for managed growth; 9) vital business environment; and 10) commitment to environmental concerns. Commissioner Thomas questioned if the City should remove those issues over which they have no control. Ms. Bramson stated this was an option. Ms. Rice pointed out that, while the City did not control the education program, if the citizens felt that was important, perhaps the City could come up with programs to encourage or assist in the education process. Mr. Van Horis explained the computer program which, through the use of keypads by the individuals in attendance, would help prioritize these ten issues. He stated the keypad exercise would rate the relative importance of the top ten issues, would indicate how we felt we were doing on those issues, would compare them and look at the contradictions. Ms. Bramson indicated the consensus project provided a good picture of what the citizens see as important in the City of Clearwater. It is now for the leadership of the City to determine where it wants to take the City. A question was raised regarding the time frame, and it was indicated it is a 3-5 year time horizon in which to implement the plans. The attendees participated in the keypad exercise. The exercise showed that, for most of the issues, the City felt it was performing relatively well. The areas that looked like opportunities for improvement were a vital business environment, responsive effective city government, and job and economic opportunities for all. The attendees broke up into groups to discuss the underlying contradictions of the three opportunities for improvement. As a result of the brainstorming session, the following barriers to improve performance were listed: a) ineffective, inefficient bureaucracy, b) high business cost, 3) conflicting, unclear community goals, d) negative City image, and e) underdeveloped human resources. The keypads were once again used to vote on potential negative impacts of the barriers, and to vote on the readiness to address the issues. Mr. Van Horis stated it seems high business cost was the one that the group was less ready and able to do something about. It was stated the executive team will need consensus from the Commission regarding direction to be taken. The attendees again broke out into groups to brainstorm on how to deal with the barriers. The strategies for dealing with the barriers should be addressed as those that have already begun, those which have been started but need to improve, and those that may be way out ideas. The strategy categories developed by the groups were 1) lessen government regulations, 2) improve public information functions, 3) expand development incentives, 4) integrate strategies with the budget, 5) streamline permit processes, and 6) increase transportation options. There will be another strategic planning meeting on February 17, 1994. Ms. Bramson's report regarding today's and tomorrow's strategic planning sessions is attached as Exhibit A to these minutes. The meeting adjourned at 6:01 p.m.