HomeMy WebLinkAbout11. A4 PrioritiesPage 1 of 2
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Commission Goal Setting
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2015
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Recommended 2015/16 Commission Priorities.
SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt the Recommended 2015/16 Commission Priorities.
BACKGROUND: Each year the City Commission identifies goals for the upcoming one to two years.
This process is completed in January or February so that the adopted goals are considered as we develop
the annual budget.
As City Manager, I am responsible to the City Commission for the management of all City affairs. The
most important duties the City Charter vests in me are to: 1) appoint or remove all City employees; 2)
direct and supervise the administration of all departments, offices, and agencies; see that all laws, provisions of the Charter, and acts of the City Commission are faithfully executed; 3) prepare and submit the annual budget and multi-year capital program, and 4) execute the final approved budget to
achieve the goals of the City. The most effective way to accomplish these duties is to align our
resources with clearly defined organizational goals and to complete the projects already underway. In
order to be most effective, employees must have the capacity to efficiently deliver day-to-day services, anticipate opportunities and challenges, and effectively deal with the unexpected in our fast-growing community.
There are two significant steps the organization must take to re-establish and enhance our community’s
trust as we move to adopt goals for 2015 and 2016: 1) complete continuing priorities from last fiscal year and 2) invest in developing a vision and strategic plan for the City of Bozeman. The
Recommended 2015/16 Commission Priorities (attached) outlines these steps, along with second-tier
priorities for the upcoming year.
Most importantly, we must successfully complete the 2014/15 Adopted Priorities (attached). Considerable progress has been made on five of the top six goals adopted last year. The expectation is
to place all of our discretionary capacity toward completing as many of the top six priorities as possible
in the upcoming year.
Looking to the future, we need to engage our citizens to develop a vision and strategic plan for our growing community. By approving a budget allocation for a strategic visioning process in early 2016,
73
Page 2 of 2
we are investing in a well thought-out and community driven plan for Bozeman. See The Value of
Community-Based Strategic Planning (attached). We are all committed to developing a world class city
for the 21st century and yet all too often I hear team members, Commissioners and citizens ask “what is
our vision for Bozeman?” At times the annual goals process can devolve into creating a task list - rather than goals that are strategically aligned with a vision. With a clearly-defined, citizen-supported vision in place, Bozeman will be better positioned to anticipate the long-term needs of our thriving community.
I propose that the Recommended 2015/16 Commission Priorities be the starting point for the goals
discussion. Upon refining the 2015/16 Commission Priorities through discussion, and as directed by the
Commission, I further recommend the Commission take action by adopting the Recommended 2015/16
Commission Priorities with any changes made during the meeting.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: If the Recommended 2015/16 Commission Priorities is adopted, the FY 2016
budget would be prepared in accordance with those initiatives.
Attachments: Recommended 2015/16 Commission Priorities
2014/15 Adopted Commission Priorities
The Value of Community-Based Strategic Planning Report compiled on: January 20, 2015
74
Page 1 of 7
Recommended 2015-2016 Commission Priorities
January 20, 2015
On April 14, 2014 the City Commission adopted six priorities. All six priorities continue into the 2015/16 fiscal year. Due to the failed bond proposal for the Rouse Justice Center, the timelines of both
the justice center and community aquatics facility have been revaluated. One new initiative has been
proposed to engage in a community-based visioning and strategic planning process in January 2016.
Top 6 Priorities
1. Landfill - Continue with landfill vapor intrusion study, including: monitoring mitigation systems;
installation and sampling of additional groundwater wells; design and construction of landfill soil
gas remediation system; close SRF loan for system; and develop protocols for educating real estate,
appraisal, and financing industries.
Primary Responsibility: Chris (CM), Greg (Legal), Craig (Public Works), Anna (Finance)
Main Project Components: Post-closure and mitigation systems monitoring; remediation
system design, installation and ongoing operation.
Estimated Timeframes: Corrective Measures Assessment (CMA) is being reviewed by the DEQ and is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2015.
The DEQ approved remediation system will be installed
immediately thereafter.
Funding Considerations: $2.1M SRF loan for remediation to be paid by est. 2 mill levy for 20 years. Sale of North Park + an annual tax levy for ALL other
expenses - including ongoing post closure monitoring est. to be
$300,000 per year.
2. Transportation System - Develop a sustainable transportation management and funding model.
Primary Responsibility: Craig (Public Works), Anna (Finance), Chris (CM), Greg (Legal)
Main Project Components: The needs have been identified and reviewed by the Commission,
the next step is to set the funding policy, prioritize projects and
complete transportation system improvements.
Estimated Timeframes: Adopt the model and finance structure in 2015. Upgrade the
transportation system 2015 - 2035.
Preliminary cost estimates: $100k to develop an interactive City transportation model + ~ $20 million for deferred maintenance and ~ $60 million to build out
arterials and collector streets
Funding Considerations: Impact fees, street assessments, SIDs and a general fund levy, have
been considered to properly upgrade our transportation network.
75
Page 2 of 7
3. Stormwater - Complete the next phase of the stormwater utility implementation by adopting a rate
model and implementing the operations and maintenance, system enhancement and deferred
maintenance activities outlined in the bronze level of service conceptually approved by the
Commission.
Primary Responsibility: Craig (Public Works), Anna (Finance), Greg (Legal), Chuck (CM)
Main Project Components: Adopt a rate structure to support the bronze level of service as
directed by the Commission in 2014.
Estimated Timeframes: 2015 - 2030
Preliminary cost estimates: $1.2 M annually to fund the bronze service level approved in
concept by the commission.
Funding Considerations: Stormwater utility charge
4. Trails and Open Space Bond – Execute approved projects and carry proposals with associated staff
analysis to Commission for consideration.
Primary Responsibility: Mitch (Parks & Rec.), Greg (Legal), Anna (Finance), Chris (CM)
Main Project Components:
• Construct Trail to the M
• Complete Bozeman Ponds expansion
• Complete Bozeman Creek project
• Complete Story Mill Community Park
• Complete Phase I of Bozeman Sports Park. Each project represents varying levels of work for the Parks, Legal, Finance, and Public Works departments.
Estimated Timeframes: Bozeman Ponds expansion – current to 2015
Bozeman Creek enhancement project – current to 2016 Bozeman Sports Park – current to 2017
Trail to the M – current to 2017
Story Mill Community Park – current to 2018
Funding Considerations: $15M funded by voter approved levy in November 2012 election. Approx. $14.1 million has been allocated for the five projects
listed above. Maintenance obligations related to the five projects
has not been determined.
5. Police/Municipal Courts Building – Set deadline of July 1, 2015 to determine if the new municipal
justice center will be built in partnership with Gallatin County at the current law and justice center or
if we are building our facility at Rouse and Oak. The project scope and timeline are greatly
dependent on the project location.
Primary Responsibility: City Commission
76
Page 3 of 7
Main Project Components: Joint meetings between the City and County Commissioners to
determine project scope, location and timeline.
Estimated Timeframes: July 1, 2015 deadline Funding Considerations: Costs depends on project scope and location. The land was
purchased and preliminary design is completed for the Rouse
Justice Center with an estimated bond cost of $23.8 million in
2014. 6. Community Vision and Strategic Plan – Complete a community engagement process in 2016 to
set a clear vision and strategies to accomplish the vision.
Primary Responsibility: City Commission and Chris (CM) Main Project Components: FY 2016 budget allocation, complete selection process in fall 2015
to begin the public process during the first quarter of 2016.
Estimated Timeframes: 2015 budget and consultant selection, 2016 complete the visioning process .
Preliminary cost estimates: $125k
Important, but not at the expense of the Top 6 Priorities
7. Sewer Collection System Upgrades – Review and approve the updated wastewater master plan and
integrated recommended improvements to the trunk and interceptor system into the wastewater CIP
for future construction.
Primary Responsibility: Craig (Public Works), Anna (Finance), Legal
Main Project Components: Plan and budget for the design and construction of critical
improvements to the wastewater collection system to provide for
future growth identified in the plan.
Estimated Timeframes: Final updated wastewater master plan is due in early 2015.
Projects from that report should be incorporated into the upcoming
budget and design initiated on critical projects.
Funding Considerations: The master plan was funded through a development agreement.
The design and construction of several sewer trunk line projects
will be several million dollars to be paid by loan repaid by waste
water rate increase + impact fees.
8. Information Technology - Expand our utilization of hardware and software to improve staff
efficiency, decision making, customer service, and improved public access – BIG DATA.
77
Page 4 of 7
Primary Responsibility: Anna (Finance), Chuck (CM), Craig (Public Works), Mitch (Parks
& Rec.), Wendy (Comm. Dev.), Stacy (Clerk), Jason (Fire), Greg
(Legal)
Main Project Components: Software investments that are currently underway: mobile field inspection, Community Development module, electronic plan
review, e-ticketing, City-works streets, ESRI web portal, HR
module, Online City Hall, and IT help desk.
2015 projects: City-works expansion to Parks and Facilities, IVR for Treasury and Building Inspection, Laserfiche upgrade, Microsoft Office upgrade, time keeping, and applicant tracking,
Unified City Mobile Portal, e-Discovery.
Estimated Timeframes: Each of the projects that are underway will not be completed for several months. We will begin tackling new projects after the current projects have been completed.
Funding Considerations: Annual budgets, project costs generally range from $20K to
$150K.
9. Implement the Adopted Broadband Infrastructure Plan
Primary Responsibility: Brit (Econ. Dev.), David (Econ. Dev.), Karen (Legal),
Craig (Public Works)
Main Project Components: Complete Phase 1 of the Bozeman Fiber Master Plan including business planning, engineering, and construction in coordination
with City tax increment finance districts Bozeman Deaconess
Hospital, and community stakeholders.
Initiate Phase 2 of the Bozeman Fiber Master Plan including developing private financing, engineering, and construction of the
expanded network, with stakeholders that include Bozeman Public
Schools, Gallatin County and private sector financial partners.
Estimated Timeframes: -Master Plan complete in January 2015 (Pending Commission adoption scheduled for January 26, 2015)
- Engineering of Phase 1 completed by May 2013
- Construction of Phase I and part of Phase II Summer, 2015
- Engineering and construction of Phase II Spring/Summer, 2016
Funding Considerations: Total project cost Phases 1-5 up to $5 million
FY 15 - Up to $100k Downtown TIF (Ph I Engineering), funding
already committed
FY 15 - Up to $100k N 7th TIF (Phase I Engineering), work plan
and budget amendment approved by the NSURB
Up to $1.5 million Downtown TIF, North 7th TIF, and previously
funded City projects (Phase 1 Construction)
Up to $3.5 million in private financing (Phase 2 Construction)
78
Page 5 of 7
Up to $75,000 annually. Commit existing broadband services
expenditures from the General Fund to the Bozeman Fiber
network.
10. Workforce Housing (WFH) Regulations
Primary Responsibility: Wendy (Comm. Dev.), Greg (Legal)
Main Project Components: Complete the analysis of the WFH program. Should the
Commission choose to rewrite a workforce housing ordinance, it
will be extremely time consuming for community development and
the legal department. Implementation of a program would result in
the need for staff to monitor the program.
Estimated Timeframes: Early 2015
Funding Considerations: Unknown
11. Infill Development – promote and streamline infill development.
Primary Responsibility: Wendy (Comm. Dev.), Craig (Public Works)
Main Project Components: Consultant selection is underway for Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). The contract will result in
recommendations to amend the Unified Development Code (UDC)
to improve infill development opportunities, recommend changes
to NCOD, and amend accessory dwelling unit provisions. Estimated Timeframes: Fall 2015
Funding Considerations: $35k funded in the current budget + $30k grant
12. Family Aquatics Center – Complete partnership agreements with the YMCA, complete preliminary
design of shared space for future voter approval to build an aquatics center.
Primary Responsibility: Chuck (CM), Mitch (Parks & Rec.), Greg (Legal), Anna (Finance),
Chris (CM)
Main Project Components: Complete the partnership agreements between the YMCA and City as directed by the Commission in 2014. Participate with YMCA in
preliminary design of shared areas to accommodate a future
aquatics center being added.
Estimated Timeframes: Unknown
Preliminary cost estimates: $17M (2014 number)
Funding Considerations: $350k in current budget to complete ~50% design for voter
consideration for the construction bond and possible operating
79
Page 6 of 7
levy. We estimate that $75k is necessary to complete the
partnership agreement and joint design based on the new scope
identified under the “main project components” above. The
remaining $275k needs to be diverted to the landfill until the sale of North Park takes place.
80
Page 7 of 7
Critical Plan Implementation Projects
Economic Development Plan (EDP) Update and continue implementation of the 2009 Economic
Development Plan focusing on job creation in high growth potential sectors including the outdoor
industry, photonics, high technology, manufacturing, bio-science, social sector and health care and
continue to promote economic diversity and community partnerships.
Primary Responsibility: Brit (Econ. Dev.) Main Project Components: Update the EDP and implement strategies for each of the following
high growth potential sectors; Outdoor, Photonics, High
Technology, Manufacturing, Bio-Science, social sector, health
care, and continue to implement the plan over time.
Estimated Timeframes: Started in summer of 2013 and continues today. Initial efforts started with Outdoor and Photonics sectors, budgeted to begin
work on High Tech and social sector initiatives.
Funding Considerations: General fund contribution (sector development, $30k and EDP
update $15k)
Climate Action Plan. Implement Climate Action Plan by completing the adopted goals in the FY15
budget.
Primary Responsibility: Chuck (CM), Natalie (Sustainability)
Main Project Components: Implement Climate Action Plan, complete investment grade audit, implement business energy program and Bozeman Energy
Smackdown, complete a green vehicle fleet assessment, and create
a permanent Sustainability Advisory Council.
Estimated Timeframes: Ongoing
Funding Considerations: Overall operating budget is $53K for office operations, outreach,
and programming. McKinstry projects ~$400K
Integrated Water Resources Plan. Implement IWRP by prioritizing and developing action plans
for the elements of the IWRP.
Primary Responsibility: Craig (Public Works), Chris (CM), Anna (Finance), Greg (Legal)
Main Project Components: See approved implementation strategy
Estimated Timeframes: 50 year plan Preliminary cost estimates: Millions
Funding Considerations: Cash in lieu, impact fees, and water rates.
Implement the Downtown Plan
Primary Responsibility: Brit (Econ. Dev.), Wendy (Comm. Dev.), Chris (CM), Craig (Public Works) Main Project Components: Expand excess to housing, lodging and employment. Continue
investing in infrastructure upgrades. Undergo an update to the
plan and integrate with parking program.
Estimated Timeframes: Ongoing
Funding Considerations: Unknown
81
Page 1 of 6
2014-2015 City Commission Priorities
Adopted April 14, 2014
As city manager, I am responsible to the Commission for the management of all City affairs. The most important
responsibilities the City Charter places on me are the duties to: appoint or remove all City employees; direct and
supervise the administration of all departments, offices, and agencies; see that all laws, provisions of the charter, and acts of the City Commission are faithfully executed; prepare and submit the annual budget and multi-year
capital program, and execute the final approved budget to achieve the goals of the City. The most effective way I
know to accomplish these duties is to match resources with tasks and workforce and workloads. In order to be most effective, employees must have the resources and capacity to efficiently deliver day-to-day services,
anticipate opportunities and challenges, and effectively deal with the unexpected in our fast-growing community. On February 10, 2014 the City Commission adopted 25 priorities in no particular order; on April 14 the list was
reduced to the following six priorities.
1. Landfill Vapor Intrusion - Continue with landfill vapor intrusion study, including: monitoring mitigation
systems; installation and sampling of additional groundwater wells; design and construction of landfill soil gas
remediation system; finalize SRF loan for system; and develop protocols for educating real estate, appraisal, and
financing industries.
Primary Responsibility: Chris, Greg, Craig, Anna
Main Project Components: Craig – Technical focus
• Post closure and mitigation systems monitoring
• Remediation system design and installation
Greg – Legal Anna – Finance
• Financial reporting requirements
• Annual audit disclosures
• Bonding implications
• Financial planning for project costs
• Loan application, closing and draws
Chris – PIO
Estimated Timeframes: Six RFP submissions have been analyzed and the contract award is anticipated in April 2014 – contract execution throughout 2014 and 2015.
Funding Considerations: $2.1M SRF loan for remediation to be paid by est. 2/yr levy for 20 years.
$700k cash + possible sale of North Park + an annual tax levy for ALL other expenses - including ongoing post closure monitoring.
2. Police/Municipal Courts Building - Complete the land swap and building design, educate the public, and
receive voter approval for a new police station and municipal courts building.
Primary Responsibility: Chuck, Chris, Ron, Greg, Anna
Main Project Components: Complete boundary line adjustment and lot creation at WRF, complete
conveyance agreement outlining terms of the land exchange, GCCM solicitation and contract negotiation, complete schematic design, determine cost estimates
and funding plan, present to Commission for approval, and educate voters. Estimated Timeframes: Preliminary building design and operating cost estimates completed by June
2014, Commission presentation in July for Nov. 2014 bond election.
Funding Considerations: Current budget includes $1M for land purchase + $750k for design; Voter reviewed bond is estimated to be $20M + operating levy.
82
Page 2 of 6
3. Transportation System - Develop a sustainable transportation management and funding model.
Primary Responsibility: Craig, Anna, Chris
Main Project Components: Identify and meet existing and future transportation needs
Estimated Timeframes: Develop the model and finance structure in 2014
Preliminary cost estimates: $100k to develop an interactive City transportation model + millions to make
transportation improvements
Funding Considerations: Impact fees, street assessments, SIDs and a general fund levy (in place of the 1995 transportation bond) must be considered to properly upgrade our
transportation network and its intersections.
4. Trails and Open Space Bond – Execute approved projects successfully and carry proposals and the associated
staff analysis to Commission for consideration.
Primary Responsibility: Mitch, Greg, Anna, Chris
Main Project Components: Construct Trail to the M; complete Bozeman Ponds expansion; complete
Bozeman Creek project; review Story Park proposal; review sports complex proposal. Each project represents varying levels of work for the Parks, Legal,
Finance, and Public Works departments.
Estimated Timeframes: Project reviews 2014 – Project developments 2014 – 2018
Funding Considerations: $15M funded by voter approved levy in November 2012 election – ($9.9 M bonds issued in Dec. 2013 – remaining $5.1M to be issued fall 2014).
Maintenance obligations related to the five projects has not been determined. 5. Storm water - Complete the next phase of the Storm water utility implementation by developing an assessment
methodology and developing a budget for Commission review and adoption.
Primary Responsibility: Craig, Anna, Greg, Chuck Main Project Components: Determine level of service and equitable rate structure to finance improvements
Estimated Timeframes: Permit expires 2014 Preliminary cost estimates: Depends on service levels - $500k - $1M/year additional funding
Funding Considerations: Storm water utility charge
6. Family Aquatics Center – Determine the location and options for partnerships, complete preliminary design and
receive voter approval to build a family aquatics center replacing Bogert Pool.
Primary Responsibility: Chuck, Mitch, Greg, Anna, Chris
Main Project Components: Investigate a best location for a new indoor/outdoor aquatics center and work with the YMCA to explore potential partnerships. Present to Commission for
review and approval. Complete design to the fullest extent with existing budget authority. Present to Commission for possible November 2015 bond election
and educate the public.
Estimated Timeframes: Voter review during the November 2015 election.
Preliminary cost estimates: $15M Funding Considerations: $125k in current budget + $225 in 2015 proposed budget to complete ~50%
design for voter consideration for the construction bond and possible operating
levy.
83
Page 3 of 6
Important but not at the expense of the top 6 priorities
7. Information technology - Expand our utilization of hardware and software to improve staff efficiency, decision
making, customer service, and improved public access – BIG DATA
Primary Responsibility: Anna, Chuck, Craig, Mitch, Wendy, Stacy, Ron, Jason, Greg
Main Project Components: Software investments that are currently underway: mobile field inspection, Community Development module, electronic plan review, e-ticketing, City-works
streets, ESRI web portal, HR module, Online City Hall, and IT help desk. Potential projects: City-works expansion to Parks and Facilities, IVR for Treasury and Building Inspection, Laserfiche upgrade, Microsoft Office upgrade, time
keeping, and applicant tracking. Estimated Timeframes: Each of the projects that are underway will not be completed for several months. We will begin tackling potential projects after the current projects have been completed.
Funding Considerations: Six figures for software + three full time employees (1 IT + 2 GIS)
8. Evaluate current insurance coverage (property, liability) – Assess gaps and best practice options.
Primary Responsibility: Chris, Greg, Anna
Main Project Components: Select consultant and review their analysis of our property and liability insurance coverages. Estimated Timeframes: Fall 2014 Funding Considerations: $15k is included in the current budget
9. Story Mansion - Develop a permanent plan for the Story mansion.
Primary Responsibility: Chris, Greg, Anna
Main Project Components: Provide the Commission with information on property value and execute Commission’s directive on future owner/user of the property.
Estimated Timeframes: January 1, 2015 Preliminary cost estimates: 2014 appraisal sets the value at $1.54M; future renovations are estimated at over
$1M. Funding Considerations: A sale adds cash to the general fund. If we retain the property, further capital
investments will need to be made in addition to the ongoing staff capacity to
offer the facility for rentals.
10. Western sewer line - Develop master plan and build major sewer trunk line.
Primary Responsibility: Craig, Anna, City Attorney’s Office
Main Project Components: Design and build a major sewer trunk line on the west side of Bozeman. Estimated Timeframes: Final report is due in 2015.
Funding Considerations: Master plan was funded through a development agreement, the design and construction of the sewer trunk line is est. at $13M to be paid by loan repaid by
waste water rate increase + impact fees.
11. Build a coalition of broadband users to develop a broadband infrastructure plan.
Primary Responsibility: Brit, Chris, Craig, Greg
Main Project Components: Phase I - complete a master plan in partnership with several local partners. The master plan will determine existing assets, community stakeholders, physical
infrastructure, financial model, policy changes, business case, etc. Once complete, the master plan will drive discussions and decisions about whether a
broadband infrastructure is an appropriate public private investment. Estimated Timeframes: Complete the feasibility study by fall 2014.
84
Page 4 of 6
Funding Considerations: $90k for the feasibility study – coalition members are being approached to share
the cost (City’s share is est. at $20k). The actual broadband ring will also cost
several million dollars and also be shared between coalition partners.
12. Infill development – promote and streamline infill development.
Primary Responsibility: Wendy, Craig
Main Project Components: The scope of work has been drafted but RFPs have not been advertised. The contract will result in recommendations to amend the Unified Development
Code to improve infill development opportunities. Estimated Timeframes: Fall 2014
Funding Considerations: $35k funded in the current budget, initial consultant estimates work cost will be $50-85k.
13. Implement a voluntary rental safety initiative
Primary Responsibility: Jason
Main Project Components: Educate community and MSU students/parents on current practices regarding safe rental living. Inspect units as requested by property owners, landlords
and/or tenants. Work with landlords, property owners and property managers to minimize life safety hazards identified by inspections. Maintain list of
inspected and approved safe rental units. Estimated Timeframes: April 2014 and continue indefinitely.
Funding Considerations: One of the primary duties of the FY15 requested Fire Inspector. 14. Expand LED lighting throughout the City
Primary Responsibility: Chuck, Craig
Main Project Components: Develop prescriptive lighting standards and amend the UDO accordingly. Estimated Timeframes: Fall 2014
Funding Considerations: $40k has been requested in the 2015 Public Works budget proposal.
15. ADA corners
Primary Responsibility: Craig Main Project Components: Increase cash investments into intersection ramp replacements which are most
effectively accomplished in conjunction with street reconstruction projects. Many of the remaining ramp projects include street grade and storm water problems that also need to be fixed in order to resolve issues. Estimated Timeframes: Multi-year implementation strategy
Funding Considerations: $5k per ramp
16. Improve process for allowing solar panel installations throughout the City
Primary Responsibility: Wendy Main Project Components: Streamline code and permitting processes for solar panel installations. Estimated Timeframes: Late 2014/early 2015 Funding Considerations: Limited cost- time is the primary limitation.
17. Discuss workforce housing regulations in late 2014
Primary Responsibility: Wendy, Greg
Main Project Components: Depends – the discussion will cause limited additional work however IF the
commission chooses to rewrite a workforce housing ordinance it will be
extremely time consuming for community development and the legal
department
Estimated Timeframes: late 2014/early 2015
85
Page 5 of 6
Funding Considerations: unknown
18. Infrastructure Maintenance
Primary Responsibility: Craig, Anna, Chris
Main Project Components: WRF, WP, Water & Sewer pipes, Streets, Sidewalks
Estimated Timeframes: Ongoing
Funding Considerations: ~$2M/yr pipes; ~600k/yr streets;
19. Convention Center
Primary Responsibility: Brit, Greg, Anna, Wendy, Chris
Main Project Components: Construct a convention center - Possible TBID North 7th TIF partnership;
substantial legal, financial and political considerations. 1st step is for the TBID
to determine their proposed project.
Estimated Timeframes: Unknown
Funding Considerations: Increase local bed tax and possible N 7th TIF bond
20. Tax Abatement
Primary Responsibility: Wendy, Greg, Anna
Main Project Components: Work with stakeholders including HPAB, SHPO, Chamber of Commerce and
property owners to bring to the City Commission amendments to the existing tax
abatement code, Title 2 Division 3 of the BMC to create a streamlined user
focused program that applies to commercial and residential properties.
Estimated Timeframes: Late 2014
Funding Considerations: Minimal
The number of projects each department is heavily involved in is as follows: City Manager’s office 17,
Legal 13, Finance 13, Public Works 10, Community Development 6, Parks & Rec 3, Economic
Development 1, Police 1, Fire 1
86
Page 6 of 6
Critical Plan Implementation Projects
Economic Development Plan (EDP) Update and continue implementation of the 2009 Economic
Development Plan focusing on job creation in high growth potential sectors including the outdoor
industry, photonics, high technology, manufacturing, bio-science, social sector and health care and
continue to promote economic diversity and community partnerships.
Primary Responsibility: Brit Main Project Components: Update the EDP and implement strategies for each of the following
high growth potential sectors; Outdoor, Photonics, High Technology, Manufacturing, Bio-Science, social sector, health care, and continue to
implement the plan over time. Estimated Timeframes: Started in summer of 2013 and continues today. Initial efforts started
with Outdoor and Photonics sectors, budgeted to begin work on High Tech and social sector initiatives.
Funding Considerations: General fund contribution (sector development, $30k and EDP update, $15k)
Climate Action Plan. Implement Climate Action Plan by completing the adopted goals in the FY15
budget.
Primary Responsibility: (Natalie), Chuck Main Project Components: Implement Climate Action Plan, complete investment grade audit,
implement business energy program and Bozeman Energy Smackdown, complete a green vehicle fleet assessment, and create a
permanent Sustainability Advisory Council. Estimated Timeframes: Ongoing
Funding Considerations: Overall operating budget is $53K for office operations, outreach, and
programming.
Integrated Water Resources Plan. Implement IWRP by prioritizing and developing action plans
for the elements of the IWRP.
Primary Responsibility: Craig, Chris, Anna, Greg Main Project Components: See approved implementation strategy
Estimated Timeframes: 50 year plan Preliminary cost estimates: Millions
Funding Considerations: Cash in lieu, impact fees, and water rates.
Implement the Downtown Plan
Primary Responsibility: Brit, Wendy, Chris, Craig
Main Project Components: Expand excess to housing, lodging and employment. Continue investing in infrastructure upgrades.
Estimated Timeframes: ongoing Funding Considerations: unknown
87
icma.org/pm MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 13
Is there any value in engaging com-
munities in strategic planning? After all,
locally elected officials function within
a representative democracy, accepting
responsibility for planning for the future of
local governments. While the need is not
always tangible, the value in community-based
strategic planning is derived from the engage-
ment, buy-in, and owning a stake of the future
of the communities within which local govern-
ments operate.
In the late 1990s, I recall Alvin Toffler
speaking at a national conference where he
shared a metaphor that left a lasting impres-
sion. Toffler talked about how local govern-
ments were becoming vending machines. A
vending machine is not something anyone
“buys into”—you literally put your money in,
press the button, and get what you want.
And what happens when we don’t get what
we want? We shake or kick the machine, leave
nasty Post-it notes, and perhaps call the posted
phone number and complain to a customer
service representative. While I am a believer in
local governments providing excellent customer
service, Toffler’s metaphor is clearly not the
image we want for local governments.
Engaging residents (and businesses and
institutions) in community-based strategic plan-
ning replaces the vending machine and invokes
a setting where people and institutions come
together, dream about, and then go about creat-
ing the future of their community. Toffler offered
the image of a barn raising being a more apropos
metaphor than a vending machine.
It sounds lovely. Spending time with a
group of residents to get their input and buy-in
By Julia Novak
Takeaways
›Community-based
strategic planning is
a specific approach to
strategic planning that
engages the community
in a tangible way.
›A local government
can be the initiator
or the collaborator in
designing a strategic
planning process.
›Community-based
strategic planning
acknowledges that local
government cannot
meet all the needs in
the community, while
simultaneously validat-
ing the important role
it plays in the lives of
stakeholders.
ThaT Make
a Difference to the future of a community. The question
is: Does it make a difference?
Back to the Future
Over the past 20 years, I have had the op-
portunity to participate in community-based
strategic planning processes as both a city
official/manager and as an adviser. At this
juncture, it is reasonable to ask the question:
What difference did those processes have in
the lives of community residents?
Fort Collins, Colorado: Challenge Fort
Collins. The first exposure I had to com-
munity-based strategic planning beyond
public processes for capital improvement
planning (CIP) was a process known as
Challenge Fort Collins in the early 1990s.
Fort Collins had long been known for ac-
tive resident participation. Two successful
CIP processes had brought impressive city
facilities to life in this college town—one
known as Designing Tomorrow Today; the
other, Choices 95.
One could have almost questioned the
need for Challenge Fort Collins but in reality
it was bigger than the city government, it was
about the entire community. Leadership was
provided by dedicated residents, the Poudre
Valley School District, Colorado State Uni-
versity, Poudre Valley Hospital, the business
community, the arts community, and the city.
Everyone had an equal voice, and
when residents wanted to open up the
public schools for community use “after
hours,” it took several years of dedicated
individuals working tirelessly to engage
Dreams
The value of
communiTy-based
sTraTegic planning
Community is Created when people are allowed to
engage their heads, their hearts, and their hands
in establishing something tangible.
12 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | MARCH 2014 icma.org/pm88
icma.org/pm MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 13
Is there any value in engaging com-
munities in strategic planning? After all,
locally elected officials function within
a representative democracy, accepting
responsibility for planning for the future of
local governments. While the need is not
always tangible, the value in community-based
strategic planning is derived from the engage-
ment, buy-in, and owning a stake of the future
of the communities within which local govern-
ments operate.
In the late 1990s, I recall Alvin Toffler
speaking at a national conference where he
shared a metaphor that left a lasting impres-
sion. Toffler talked about how local govern-
ments were becoming vending machines. A
vending machine is not something anyone
“buys into”—you literally put your money in,
press the button, and get what you want.
And what happens when we don’t get what
we want? We shake or kick the machine, leave
nasty Post-it notes, and perhaps call the posted
phone number and complain to a customer
service representative. While I am a believer in
local governments providing excellent customer
service, Toffler’s metaphor is clearly not the
image we want for local governments.
Engaging residents (and businesses and
institutions) in community-based strategic plan-
ning replaces the vending machine and invokes
a setting where people and institutions come
together, dream about, and then go about creat-
ing the future of their community. Toffler offered
the image of a barn raising being a more apropos
metaphor than a vending machine.
It sounds lovely. Spending time with a
group of residents to get their input and buy-in
By Julia Novak
Takeaways
›Community-based
strategic planning is
a specific approach to
strategic planning that
engages the community
in a tangible way.
›A local government
can be the initiator
or the collaborator in
designing a strategic
planning process.
›Community-based
strategic planning
acknowledges that local
government cannot
meet all the needs in
the community, while
simultaneously validat-
ing the important role
it plays in the lives of
stakeholders.
ThaT Make
a Difference to the future of a community. The question
is: Does it make a difference?
Back to the Future
Over the past 20 years, I have had the op-
portunity to participate in community-based
strategic planning processes as both a city
official/manager and as an adviser. At this
juncture, it is reasonable to ask the question:
What difference did those processes have in
the lives of community residents?
Fort Collins, Colorado: Challenge Fort
Collins. The first exposure I had to com-
munity-based strategic planning beyond
public processes for capital improvement
planning (CIP) was a process known as
Challenge Fort Collins in the early 1990s.
Fort Collins had long been known for ac-
tive resident participation. Two successful
CIP processes had brought impressive city
facilities to life in this college town—one
known as Designing Tomorrow Today; the
other, Choices 95.
One could have almost questioned the
need for Challenge Fort Collins but in reality
it was bigger than the city government, it was
about the entire community. Leadership was
provided by dedicated residents, the Poudre
Valley School District, Colorado State Uni-
versity, Poudre Valley Hospital, the business
community, the arts community, and the city.
Everyone had an equal voice, and
when residents wanted to open up the
public schools for community use “after
hours,” it took several years of dedicated
individuals working tirelessly to engage
Dreams
The value of
communiTy-based
sTraTegic planning
Community is Created when people are allowed to
engage their heads, their hearts, and their hands
in establishing something tangible.
12 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | MARCH 2014 icma.org/pm 89
14 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | MARCH 2014 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 15
the school district and create an
award-winning program that was later
recognized by President Clinton as a
program of excellence.
Rockville, Maryland: Imagine
Rockville. In the late 1990s, Rockville,
Maryland, engaged in a community-
based process that was known as
Imagine Rockville: Creating the Future,
followed by its successor Imagine Rock-
ville: Checking in with the Future. Those
processes had a profound impact on the
community and city government.
Out of the process, the city decided
to intentionally engage neighborhood
associations in order to establish a
Neighborhood Resources Program that
was desired by the community and is
still in place today. It was determined
that downtown Rockville, which was
emerging from a failed shopping mall
that imploded in late 1995, needed grid
streets to be reestablished, and the com-
munity wanted a new county library to
be the centerpiece of Town Center.
Today, Rockville Town Center has
a beautiful library, mixed-use develop-
ment, and entertainment that is a
regional attraction.
Bridget Newton, an Imagine
Rockville participant and now mayor
of Rockville, noted: “The Imagine
Rockville process brought a hundred
residents into the process of articulat-
ing a future for our community and
then kept people engaged in the
process of implementation. Imagine
Rockville was the barn-raising process
that turned downtown Rockville into
everybody’s neighborhood.”
Unique to Imagine Rockville was not
only the accomplishments that came out
of the process but also the very process
itself, which was innovative and effec-
tive. Imagine Rockville borrowed from
a concept known as Future Search that
was developed in Australia then brought
to the United States and adapted for use
in these types of specific engagements
with residents.
The process in Rockville was
replicated in Mansfield, Connecticut
(Mansfield 2020, 2008); Worthington,
Ohio (Worthington 360, 2010); and
Clayton, Missouri (C the Future, 2012).
Each of these community-based visioning
processes used the Future Search process,
which uses a specific facilitation tech-
nique called a Future Search Conference.
What Is a search Conference?
The Future Search Conference model
is an innovative and exciting way to
include a community in planning its
future. In regards to community-based
strategic planning, a search conference
model is used to develop a unified com-
munity vision that identifies both the
vision and actions to be taken to achieve
that vision.
The search conference “brings people
together to achieve breakthrough in-
novation, empowerment, shared vision,
and collaborative action” (Discovering
Common Ground, Marvin R. Weisbord,
1992, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San
Francisco, California. A subsequent
book, Future Search: An Action Guide to
Finding Common Ground in Organiza-
tions and Communities, was published
in 2000 by Berrett-Koehler.) Elements of
a search conference include environmen-
tal scanning, identification of key issues,
articulation of likely and desired futures,
and action plans that are designed to set
the implementation process in motion.
The search conference is a strategic
planning event that is purposefully de-
signed to be inclusive and action oriented.
It is a participative planning method that
enables people to create their desired
future. It is a flexible process designed for
today’s rapidly changing environments.
Participants in the search conference
create a plan based on shared ideals with
tangible and flexible goals.
Clayton, Missouri: C the Future. Clay-
ton, Missouri, is a successful suburb
of St. Louis that is also known as that
city’s “second skyline.” In 2011, the
community’s elected officials decided
to engage the community in a strategic
planning process to commemorate its
centennial and chart a course for the
next 100 years.
The participants examined community
programs and processes and strategized
about what elements needed to be
addressed in order to achieve the desired
future. Figure 2 is an artist’s representa-
tion of what C the Future participants
identified as critical issues to address.
From that process the community
identified four critical success factors
that would enable the community to
attain its desired future:
• Exceptional city services.
• Livable community.
• Strategic relationships.
• Economic development and vibrant
downtown.
A directional statement was written
and key initiatives identified for each of
these areas. While many initiatives did
involve Clayton city government, some
were decidedly community-based and
required the engagement of the com-
munity’s two universities, public and
private schools, and its active business
community to make them happen.
The Vision for Clayton—Clayton is
recognized regionally and nationally as
a premier city of its size and character.
The community is a safe, vibrant
destination defined by its unique
combination of leading businesses and
educational institutions, the seat of
county government and picturesque
neighborhoods, all of which combine
to provide an exceptional quality of
life—and shown in Figure 3 might
resonate with managers who wish for
their communities to create an idyllic
environment for people to thrive. The
difference in Clayton was the dedica-
tion to making sure the dreams would
make a difference.
Community is created when people
are allowed to engage their heads, their
hearts, and their hands in establishing
something tangible. Community-based
strategic planning is more than a
technique to establish a strategic plan. It
is a strategy for engaging residents and
creating community.
Core ConCepts and Values of a searCh ConferenCe
• people are an extraordinary
source of information about
the world.
• people can have a role in
creating their desired future.
• people like opportunities to
engage their heads, hands,
and hearts.
• people can participate in
collaborative planning and
collaborative action.
• content experts who par-
ticipate in a search must fully
engage in the process.
• people participate as
individuals with their own
experiences and information,
not as a representative of, or
for, any single interest group.
• facilitators manage the
time and the tasks, not
the content.
• participants must be willing
to investigate the ideas of
others (listen with respect).
Community-based strategiC planning is more
than a teChnique to establish a strategiC
plan. it is a strategy for engaging residents
and Creating Community.
Julia Novak, icma-cm, and a
former city manager, is president,
novak consulting group, cincinnati,
ohio (jnovak@thenovakconsulting-
group.com).
Figure 2. c the future community issues.
This is an artist’s representation of what C the Future participants in clayton, missouri, identified as critical issues to address.
Figure 3. vision for clayton, missouri, in Word cloud format.
90
14 PUBLIC MANAGEMENT | MARCH 2014 icma.org/pm icma.org/pm MARCH 2014 | PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 15
the school district and create an
award-winning program that was later
recognized by President Clinton as a
program of excellence.
Rockville, Maryland: Imagine
Rockville. In the late 1990s, Rockville,
Maryland, engaged in a community-
based process that was known as
Imagine Rockville: Creating the Future,
followed by its successor Imagine Rock-
ville: Checking in with the Future. Those
processes had a profound impact on the
community and city government.
Out of the process, the city decided
to intentionally engage neighborhood
associations in order to establish a
Neighborhood Resources Program that
was desired by the community and is
still in place today. It was determined
that downtown Rockville, which was
emerging from a failed shopping mall
that imploded in late 1995, needed grid
streets to be reestablished, and the com-
munity wanted a new county library to
be the centerpiece of Town Center.
Today, Rockville Town Center has
a beautiful library, mixed-use develop-
ment, and entertainment that is a
regional attraction.
Bridget Newton, an Imagine
Rockville participant and now mayor
of Rockville, noted: “The Imagine
Rockville process brought a hundred
residents into the process of articulat-
ing a future for our community and
then kept people engaged in the
process of implementation. Imagine
Rockville was the barn-raising process
that turned downtown Rockville into
everybody’s neighborhood.”
Unique to Imagine Rockville was not
only the accomplishments that came out
of the process but also the very process
itself, which was innovative and effec-
tive. Imagine Rockville borrowed from
a concept known as Future Search that
was developed in Australia then brought
to the United States and adapted for use
in these types of specific engagements
with residents.
The process in Rockville was
replicated in Mansfield, Connecticut
(Mansfield 2020, 2008); Worthington,
Ohio (Worthington 360, 2010); and
Clayton, Missouri (C the Future, 2012).
Each of these community-based visioning
processes used the Future Search process,
which uses a specific facilitation tech-
nique called a Future Search Conference.
What Is a search Conference?
The Future Search Conference model
is an innovative and exciting way to
include a community in planning its
future. In regards to community-based
strategic planning, a search conference
model is used to develop a unified com-
munity vision that identifies both the
vision and actions to be taken to achieve
that vision.
The search conference “brings people
together to achieve breakthrough in-
novation, empowerment, shared vision,
and collaborative action” (Discovering
Common Ground, Marvin R. Weisbord,
1992, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San
Francisco, California. A subsequent
book, Future Search: An Action Guide to
Finding Common Ground in Organiza-
tions and Communities, was published
in 2000 by Berrett-Koehler.) Elements of
a search conference include environmen-
tal scanning, identification of key issues,
articulation of likely and desired futures,
and action plans that are designed to set
the implementation process in motion.
The search conference is a strategic
planning event that is purposefully de-
signed to be inclusive and action oriented.
It is a participative planning method that
enables people to create their desired
future. It is a flexible process designed for
today’s rapidly changing environments.
Participants in the search conference
create a plan based on shared ideals with
tangible and flexible goals.
Clayton, Missouri: C the Future. Clay-
ton, Missouri, is a successful suburb
of St. Louis that is also known as that
city’s “second skyline.” In 2011, the
community’s elected officials decided
to engage the community in a strategic
planning process to commemorate its
centennial and chart a course for the
next 100 years.
The participants examined community
programs and processes and strategized
about what elements needed to be
addressed in order to achieve the desired
future. Figure 2 is an artist’s representa-
tion of what C the Future participants
identified as critical issues to address.
From that process the community
identified four critical success factors
that would enable the community to
attain its desired future:
• Exceptional city services.
• Livable community.
• Strategic relationships.
• Economic development and vibrant
downtown.
A directional statement was written
and key initiatives identified for each of
these areas. While many initiatives did
involve Clayton city government, some
were decidedly community-based and
required the engagement of the com-
munity’s two universities, public and
private schools, and its active business
community to make them happen.
The Vision for Clayton—Clayton is
recognized regionally and nationally as
a premier city of its size and character.
The community is a safe, vibrant
destination defined by its unique
combination of leading businesses and
educational institutions, the seat of
county government and picturesque
neighborhoods, all of which combine
to provide an exceptional quality of
life—and shown in Figure 3 might
resonate with managers who wish for
their communities to create an idyllic
environment for people to thrive. The
difference in Clayton was the dedica-
tion to making sure the dreams would
make a difference.
Community is created when people
are allowed to engage their heads, their
hearts, and their hands in establishing
something tangible. Community-based
strategic planning is more than a
technique to establish a strategic plan. It
is a strategy for engaging residents and
creating community.
Core ConCepts and Values of a searCh ConferenCe
• people are an extraordinary
source of information about
the world.
• people can have a role in
creating their desired future.
• people like opportunities to
engage their heads, hands,
and hearts.
• people can participate in
collaborative planning and
collaborative action.
• content experts who par-
ticipate in a search must fully
engage in the process.
• people participate as
individuals with their own
experiences and information,
not as a representative of, or
for, any single interest group.
• facilitators manage the
time and the tasks, not
the content.
• participants must be willing
to investigate the ideas of
others (listen with respect).
Community-based strategiC planning is more
than a teChnique to establish a strategiC
plan. it is a strategy for engaging residents
and Creating Community.
Julia Novak, icma-cm, and a
former city manager, is president,
novak consulting group, cincinnati,
ohio (jnovak@thenovakconsulting-
group.com).
Figure 2. c the future community issues.
This is an artist’s representation of what C the Future participants in clayton, missouri, identified as critical issues to address.
Figure 3. vision for clayton, missouri, in Word cloud format.
91