Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA1. Commission Goals Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: City Commission 2016-2017 Goals and Priority Setting MEETING DATE: February 29th, 2016 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Reduce the number of priorities and rank said priorities to realistically match our resources for 2016 and 2017. BACKGROUND: See attached document Potential 2016-2017 City Commission Goals. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: To be determined. Attachments: Potential 2016-2017 City Commission Goals Supplemental 2016 Goals Memos Administrative Leadership Team Goals Matrix Report compiled on: February 26, 2016 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 is the duty 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. Daily, I work with three overlapping groups to successfully fulfill this charge. Each individual department, the administrative leadership team, and the City Commission will each benefit from a clear vision and realistic priorities. Our task Monday is to define the City Commission’s priorities for 2016 and 2017. Within this the list is our strategic planning process, budgeted for in FY16 and FY17. If retained and successful, future priority discussions will be focused on an aligned vision and strategy for our future. When setting the City Commission’s priorities, keep in mind our limited resources. By identifying a few clear priorities, the organization will deliver high quality results. Additionally, the administrative leadership team will be effective more if we have the resources and capacity to efficiently deliver day-to-day services, have time to anticipate opportunities and challenges and plan accordingly, and effectively deal with unexpected issues. Additionally, when realistic priorities are set we can successfully deal with our day-to- day responsibilities, spend time strategically considering opportunities and challenges, and be appropriately engaged in the policy development process. When we try to do too much we sacrifice our strategic responsibilities. The following graphs are meant to illustrate how these relationships should look: City Commission Department Administrative Leadership Team Policy Strategic Day-to-Day Attached are brief reports that describes each of the potential projects that City Commissioners discussed during last Monday’s goals discussion. Priorities under consideration for 2016 – 2017 in alphabetical order (Yellow represents projects currently underway): A. Bozeman minimum wage a. Taylor, Sullivan, Kukulski, Rosenberry b. Timeline unknown B. Cardiac arrest app (talk to Chief Waldo) a. Rosenberry, Waldo b. Timeline unknown C. City land for affordable housing a. Kukulski, Sullivan, CC b. Timeline unknown D. Compact of Mayors phase III a. CC, Winn, Meyer b. Timeline unknown E. Downtown Parking Plan - sustainable finance structure, increase parking capacity, code modifications a. Winn, Thomas, Sullivan, Kukulski, CC b. Unknown timeline F. Joint L&J project design and adopt ballot language a. Winn, Kukulski, Rosenberry, Crawford, Sullivan, CC b. Underway, November 2016 ballot c. Construct 2017 - 2018 G. Landfill remediation system and defend lawsuits a. Sullivan, Woolard, Rosenberry, Kukulski, CC b. Remediation system - June 2016 c. Defend lawsuits - years H. Legislative agenda/priorities for 2017 session a. Kukulski, CC, directors depending on agenda b. Underway – March 2017 c. Gas tax, resort tax, labor, water quality, condemnation, … I. Organizational vision and strategic plan a. Kukulski, CC, all directors b. March - Sept. 2016 J. Parks Maintenance District a. Overton, Kukulski, Rosenberry, Sullivan, CC b. Nov 2017 K. Plan for broadband expansion a. Fontenot, Sullivan, Woolard, Rosenberry b. Tie to CIP adoption Dec. 2016 L. UDC rewrite a. Thomas, Sullivan, CC b. Underway - Oct. 2017 c. (Including infill) M. Design Guidelines rewrite a. Thomas, Winn b. Oct 2017 N. Community Plan update O. Impact Fee update P. Transportation Plan update Adopted plans that are being implemented: • Capital Improvement Plan ~$151K • ~ $24M L&J project (2016-2018) • ~$48.2M transportation projects (2017-2021) • ~$25M trails open space and parks projects (2016 – 2018) • ~$20M Aquatics Center (2018- 2019) • Transportation Plan • Community Plan • Integrated Water Resource Plan • Climate Action Plan • Economic Development Plan • Stormwater Plan • Urban Forestry Plan • Parks Recreation Open Space and Trails • Sewer Collection System Plan • Waste Reclamation Plan • Water Plan • Fire Plan • Police Plan To: Chris Kukulski Cc: Subject: Pulse Point Cardiac Arrest App From the office of: The Fire Chief Josh Waldo February 25, 16 The PulsePoint program has been discussed previously amongst members of Gallatin County Emergency Services and Bozeman Deaconess Hospital. The PulsePoint website provides the following description of the program, “PulsePoint Respond is a pre-arrival solution designed to support public safety agencies working to improve cardiac arrest survival rates through improved bystander performance and active citizenship. Where adopted, PulsePoint Respond empowers everyday citizens to provide life‐saving assistance to victims of sudden cardiac arrest” The system works by alerting people who have registered for the program, via a text message, of a cardiac arrest event that has been reported to 911. The system only alerts people who are in close proximity of the cardiac event. The proximity is determined by the system provider and can be set to whatever distance is desired. The program will also notify the person of any AEDs that are nearby as long as the AED has been registered with the PulsePoint system. From the previous discussions about the program the key players identified in the program were, Gallatin County E-911 Gallatin County Fire Departments AMR Bozeman Deaconess Hospital Montana Heart Rescue The initial cost of program start-up was $18,000 with a reoccurring cost of $8,000 annually. This program would have to be a county wide program as the PulsePoint notifications are driven from the E-911 center. Having this feature only work in Bozeman is not possible thus if Bozeman were to fund the program it would be available to all county residents. The system needs to have an administrator to monitor / manage the program, primarily for the tracking of the AED locations in the city. There is also the potential for someone receiving notification of an AED location only to arrive and find it is not there or they can’t access if the business is closed. A possible alternative is to provide more hands only CPR training throughout the community. The PulsePoint program is currently being used in Spokane, WA: Fort Collins, CO: Seattle, WA: Portland, OR: Fargo, ND February 26, 2016 To: Chris Kukulski From the office of: Cc: Economic Development Director Subject: Scope for Conduit Expansion Policy Brit Fontenot Project: Public Conduit Expansion Policy Policy Questions: Should the City of Bozeman, as a matter of policy, support the continued growth (Downtown, Midtown, and N. Montana fiber conduit) of a public conduit system in the public right of way to facilitate the growth of Bozeman’s fiber optic assets? If so, what is the policy directive to the City and the development community? How will Bozeman’s engineering and development standards support this type of policy? How can we leverage planned (CIP) street and sidewalk reconstruction projects for conduit network expansion? How can we leverage trail projects for the conduit network expansion projects? Involved Departments: Economic Development, Public Works (including GIS), Finance, Legal, Community Development, Parks and Recreation Costs: Undetermined capital costs (initially recommending 50K for yearly capital investment in multi‐duct fiber optic conduit). Undetermined yearly maintenance costs. Responsible Parties: City Commission – public policy Public Works – engineering standards, conduit purchase, storage and installation, mapping, locates, and ongoing maintenance Finance – lease revenue Legal – lease agreements Community Development – subdivision standards, growth policy amendment(s) Economic Development – proposing routes consistent with growth of demand and markets and aligned with CIP (road and sidewalk improvements) and PROST Plan (trail construction), consideration of lease revenue to fund additional ED activities related to fiber or eventually fund the conduit expansion program Time Frame: 12‐18 months from the opening policy discussion to deploying the conduit as part of a street, sidewalk, or trail project. February 26, 2016 To: Chris Kukulski From the office of: Cc: Parks, Recreation, Forestry & Cemetery Director Subject: Parks Maintenance District Mitch Overton Topic: Parks Maintenance District Issue: 1. How to fund Parks Divisions maintenance, operations and capital as responsibilities increase. 2. Many subdivisions have no provisions to maintain their city parks and may be able abandon at any time (Meadowcreek 2015). Most plats began to have maintenance language in/around 2005 with a few exceptions, such as Valley West, which was created in 2007 with no maintenance language. 3. TOP Parks beginning to come on‐line (2016 – 2018) 4. Some subdivisions do not have the capability to maintain parks or amenities (18 HOA playgrounds, Oak Springs Park) 5. Inequity between HOA payers and citizens served by city maintained parks (double taxed?) 6. Confusion by citizens as to who is responsible for what, who their HOA is and no consistent level of service. Summary: The City Parks Department currently maintains 41 parks and owns an additional 32 parks which are maintained by the homeowners associations. Some of these city parks have language on their subdivision plats that indicate that the homeowners association will maintain the park within the neighborhood until which time the City of Bozeman enacts a maintenance district to do the same. Many of the subdivisions do not have this provision listed on the plat. However, it is now common for new subdivisions to list the provision. In 2015 Meadowcreek Subdivision decided it no longer wanted to maintain the two city parks located in the neighborhood. The city parks division absorbed them into maintenance and operations. This could continue to happen at an unforeseen rate in which the city would react to each instance. Similarly, Oak Springs Park is an example of a subdivision that did not have the financial capability to develop their 7.5 acre park to even the most basic level or to maintain it. The parks division absorbed responsibility for that city park as well in 2015, to the benefit of the community and the neighborhood. The parks division has also taken over inspection and maintenance of the 18 playgrounds located at HOA parks for liability reasons. In 2016 a new 9 acre park at Bozeman Ponds will come on‐ line with traditional amenities (public restroom, off‐leash dog area, trails, paved path, play structure, shelters, etc…) that will require additional maintenance. The Bozeman Ponds project is a part of the development of the TOP Parks that will continue to open new community parks over the next 3 years. The majority of the 32 parks that the city does not maintain currently receive HOA dues from subdivision property owners to maintain their city parks. Those property owners also pay city taxes to support the operations of the parks division and maintain the remaining 41 city parks. Then there are residents that are served by city maintained parks and pay only city taxes and no HOA dues but do have access to the HOA maintained parks since they are city property. The question then becomes; do we analyze what it would take to maintain all of the city parks by the parks division, how much that would cost and how we may implement such a plan or do we continue with business as usual and address as the issues arise? Potential Timeline: 1. Feb 29 Goals Discussion 2. March 2016: contract with TPL Conservation Strategy Team (Free) 3. March – December 2016: Collect Data and publicly discuss maintenance issues (lack of continuity in LOS, deferred maintenance, financial inequity w/ HOA parks and city maintained parks, TOP parks, Lerner, Ainsworth, Oak Springs, playstructures, etc…) 4. July 2016: Contract out a feasibility study (in FY’17 CIP) to review what is not maintained, costs associated with and examples of what the district could look like (i.e., multiple districts, one large district, HOA parks only, maintenance only with no salary, benefit and capital, etc…) 5. February 2017: If capacity and desire to continue; decide what the district would look like 6. Mid‐April 2017: begin protest period 7. July 2017: Resolution of intent to create the District via Resolution a. Or if protested: 8. July 2017: Resolution of intent to place question of District on ballot.            February 26, 2016    To: Chris Kukulski                           From the office of:  Cc: Chuck Winn                                    Sustainability Program Manager   Subject: The Compact of Mayors                          Natalie Meyer  ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Compact of Mayors is the world’s largest cooperative effort among mayors and city officials to pledge to  reduce greenhouse gas emissions, track progress, and prepare for the impacts of climate change. The program  offers recognition to cities that are preparing for the impacts of climate change and Compact cities receive  support from a city network to achieve the requirements under the agreement.     The City of Bozeman has already achieved several of the requirements under the Compact of Mayors by  adopting a Climate Action Plan and setting a Greenhouse Gas Emissions reduction target. The Compact  requirements that we have not yet achieved are: 1) report our Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) under an  international standard protocol and 2) develop a climate risk assessment and adaptation plan. The new GHG  protocol is an emerging best practice that we plan to achieve independently of signing the Compact of Mayors.  Development of a climate risk assessment and adaptation plan is a recommendation in our 2008 Municipal  Climate Action Plan and should be completed to prepare for the current and future effects of climate change.  Such plans commonly address the areas of agriculture, emergency preparedness, public health, biodiversity,  forestry, water, and infrastructure.     Implementation of the Compact of Mayors would take place over a three year planning horizon:    Year 1: Measurement  a. GHG Emissions Inventory based on updated protocol  b. Hazards reporting on current and future climate challenges  Year 2: Target  a. Recalculate GHG Emissions reduction target based on updated protocol  b. Develop a vulnerability of climate change risk assessment that provides a scientific estimation of  risks due to climate change  Year 3: Action Plan  a. Develop an Adaptation Plan to outline the intended changes to city systems in response to climate  change    Project partners would include several city departments, county and state agencies, and business and non‐profit  organizations. Engagement in the development of the Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan would  begin in year two and be completed in year three. Key City of Bozeman staff includes:    City Sustainability: N. Meyer and H. Higinbotham  Economic Development: B. Fontenot  Public Works: C. Woolard, L. Leoniak, B. Heaston, and K. Mehrens  Public Safety: P. Lonergan, J. Waldo, S. Crawford  Parks & Recreation: M. Overton, J. Jolliff  Community Development: W. Thomas    February 26, 2016 To: City Commission From the office of: Cc: City Manager Subject: 2016‐2017 Goals Discussion Chris Kukulski Topic: Establish a minimum wage for the employers within the city limits of Bozeman. Policy Question: Should the City of Bozeman create a minimum wage, if so what should it be? Scope: This is a significant policy, legal, political and economic question. Much of the initial research can be done by elected officials using resources outside of the City. However, if the decision is made to create a minimum wage this project will have a significant impact on the City’s resources. In order to optimize our probability of success dozens of community meetings would need to take place to educate, develop buy‐in and gage support and opposition. This is also a significant legal question. I’m unaware of any other city within Montana who has established their own minimum wage. Staff involved: City Commission would take the lead, City Manager, Economic Development Director, Administrative Services and City Attorney. Timeline: In discussing this potential project, the Mayor anticipates doing research throughout most of 2016. Staff involvement will begin during the spring of 2017 and would remain constant throughout 2017. Topic: Use City land for affordable housing. Policy question: Should the City convert any of its land holdings for affordable housing? Scope: A map of all City‐owned parcels needs to be analyzed by the City Commission and staff. It is my understanding that the map has been reviewed by CAHAB several times over the past few years. Staff involved: City Commission, City Manager, Community Development, Administrative Services and City Attorney. Timeline: Depends on how aggressively the City Commission wants to pursue this idea. Topic: Downtown Parking Plan Policy Questions: What level of parking supply should the City create, own and operate? What sustainable financial model should be implemented to cover all costs? Scope: The scope greatly depends on the quality of public engagement and policy work done by the Parking Commission and whether or not the City Commission and Parking Commission are aligned on answers to the policy questions. The Parking Commission has hired an expert to analyze parking in the downtown, determine what the delta is between current and needed parking and to deliver a plan for the future. Parking is becoming the driving influence in the core area and as a result will require significant public engagement in order to set good policy. The project’s outcomes will likely impact parking management, enforcement, the unified development code, finance and economic development opportunities in the City’s core. Staff involved: Parking Commission, City Commission, City Manager’s office, Community Development, City Attorney, and Administrative Services. Timeline: The Parking Commission’s expert will complete their analysis in April of 2016. Further public engagement and City Commission activity will take place throughout the spring and summer. Topic: Legislative Agenda for 2017 Policy Question: Should the City create a legislative agenda to proactively engage in the 2017 legislative process? Scope: If our approach to the 2017 legislative session is similar to the past, we will play defense, testify only when asked or when bills are introduced that will have a negative effect on our effectiveness. This approach requires approximately 40 to 60 hours of work across the organization. In order to be proactive and aggressive we would need to increase our effort three or four fold and seriously consider hiring a lobbyist for between $35k and $45k. Staff involved: City Commission leads, City Manager heavily involved and department directors will be dependent on what legislative priorities we set. Timeline: The legislative agenda needs to be established prior to the primary election. Extensive work needs to be done between the primary and the November election and again between the election and the beginning of the session. Our efforts will need to be sustained throughout the session running from early January through April 2017. ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP TEAM MATRIX The following matrix illustrates projects the City Manager recognizes are in need of analysis and possible reform to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization. To develop and successfully implement each initiative, significant staff time and resources are required. Several of these initiatives are currently being addressed by established teams. Others are not currently being addressed but should be within the next two years. 1. Encourage and Promote Opportunities for Citizenship 2.Provide and Communicate Quality Customer Service 3. Build a Strong Team of Staff, Elected Officials and Citizens 4.Anticipate Future Service Demands and Resource Deficiencies and be Proactive in Addressing Them 5. Develop a visually appealing and culturally rich community. 6. Commit to a strong financial position. 7. Provide excellent and equitable public services which are responsive to the community within available resources. 8. Facilitate job creation and provide economic diversity. 9. Identify Community Partners and work to provide services with and through them, where appropriate. 1. Complete Employee Handbook     2. Adopt a contract and procurement policy/manual        3. Implement technology improvements – Cityworks, SunGard, Laserfiche       4. Labor management relationship - Teamster Contract      5. Director team development       6. HPO/supervisor development      7. Records and information management      8. Further develop risk management program     9. Analyze pros & cons of 2 year budget cycle      Vision, Mission, and Goals Vision: Bozeman, Montana: The most livable place. Mission: To enhance the quality of life through excellence in public service. Goals: 1. Encourage and promote opportunities for citizenship. 2. Provide and communicate quality customer service. 3. Build a strong team of staff, elected officials, and citizens. 4. Anticipate future service demands and resource deficiencies and be proactive in addressing them. 5. Develop a visually appealing and culturally rich community. 6. Commit to a strong financial position. 7. Provide excellent and equitable public services which are responsive to the community within available resources. 8. Facilitate job creation and provide economic diversity. 9. Identify Community Partners and work to provide services with and through them, where appropriate.