Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 04/22/1997 - Workshop APPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY,APRIL 22, 1997 7:00 p.m. CITY CENTER CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC Heritage Room IV MANAGEMENT FACILITATION 8080 Mitchell Road WORKSHOP COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jean Harris, Councilmembers Sherry Butcher-Younghans, Ronald Case, Ross Thorfinnson Jr., and Nancy Tyra-Lukens CITY STAFF: City Manager Carl Jullie, Assistant City Manager Chris Enger, Director of Human Resources and Community Services Natalie Swaggert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, Director of Parks, Recreation and Facilities Bob Lambert, and Council Recorder Barbara Anderson WORKSHOP FACILITATOR: Elizabeth Craig, Craig Group International I. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FACILITATION WORKSHOP Mayor Harris reviewed the history of strategic planning efforts and gave an overview of previous workshops attended by Council members commencing in 1988. Barbara Arney assisted staff in dealing with strategic planning versus strategic management. In 1988 a Mission Statement was developed for the City of Eden Prairie and the goal was to identify key issues and trends over the next five years. In 1989 the issues of Transportation, Affordable Housing, Increased Demand for City Services, Maintaining Open Space, and Facilitating the Growth of the Business Community were discussed. In 1990 critical issues were identified as a Board of Review, the Budget Process, and Communication. The Board of Review was created to provide an impartial review process for housing assessment disputes instead of having the City Council act in that capacity. In June of 1991, the Council discussed Quality Management and instituted a process of holding Council workshops on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. In Fall, 1991, the challenges between governing and management of the City were addressed, and strengths, weaknesses, and threats were identified. In 1992 the challenges of governing and managing a City was discussed, and policies were defined as a series of statements that reflect community values and principles. Clarification of roles and responsibilities in decision making and an in-depth look at policies and procedures by area was done. In 1993-1994 there was an absence of strategic planning policies,but in 1995 policy making and staff collaboration became the focus and determining a balance of roles in this process. Creating a framework for this process became a primary goal. In 1996 a Chart of Strategic Planning and a 5-Year Outlook was developed. The following critical assumptions and issues were identified: Transportation, Development of remaining Open Land,Decreasing the Tax Levy, Balancing Resources,Developing a Sense of Community, Provision of Social Services, and the guiding principles to be used on each issue. CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FACILITATION WORKSHOP April22, 1997 Page 2 Elizabeth Craig discussed the strategic management and decision making process. She noted that strategic management is to provide a framework for policy formulation, decision making and implementation. She reviewed the process of strategic management and the need to pay attention to the environment which surrounds all these areas and influences what goes on within these areas. She reviewed some of the things that had been identified as things they would never do at a Council Meeting during the last workshop. Craig instructed the groups to study the list of 28 items which were identified at the last workshop as things they would never do at a Council Meeting and try to remember as many as possible so they could write them down. From this list they would consolidate these items into ten items. The result of this activity was the following items were identified as being the most important things to work towards when making decisions: • Respect • Open Communication • Perspective • Teamwork • Balanced Decisions • Continuous Improvement • Maintain a Sense of Humor • Keep an Open Mind • Make Informed Decisions Craig discussed the decision making pyramid and how decisions can vary between being pro- active or long-term and reactive or short-term. She discussed the ways in which the environment in which a decision is made can affect the outcome, such as decisions made under pressure from lobbyists, special interest groups, etc. Some factors which go into making reactive or short-term decisions are not enough time, lack of information to make a knowledgeable decision,hip-shooting,lack of critical information, surprise, sense of being put on the spot,feeling highly stressed, emotional testimony, and crisis-oriented situations. Other items identified were having a limited viewpoint, personal agendas, special interests, having a decision made for the loudest rather than the greater good of the community, hidden agendas, decisions made for political reasons, and grandstanding. Issues being perceived as minor, lack of values and long-term vision, too many items or too much information to process simultaneously were also included in this area. Some of the outcomes to reactionary decision making were: • Poor decisions • Expensive decisions • Reactionary outcomes • Poor structure for building future decisions • Setting undesirable precedents • Unforseen negative outcomes • Public policy which is ultimately unfair to the most people • Not making a decision but"allowing" it to happen • Inconsistent decisions CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FACILITATION WORKSHOP April 22, 1997 Page 3 • Confusion among stakeholders and frustration by those impacted by the decision • Lack of credibility for later decisions • Decisions made without clear understanding of future ramifications Characteristics in making Pro-Active Decisions: • Problem solving environment • Respectful, thoughtful interaction between group members • No hostility or stress • No fatigue • Deliberative • Open and inclusive • All experts present and diverse viewpoints expressed • Leverages articulated • Goals and community values considered • Financially sound • Based on long-term vision and goals • Good for the community • Consensus reached or built • Sound reasons for the decision • Adequate information and time • Friendly teamwork • Fits within the policies and goals • Cooperative/participative process Outcomes of making Pro-active Decisions: • Decisions provide framework and direction for future decisions • Decisions respect and link to past decisions • Decisions are defensible • Group supportable • Leads to measurable end points • Lasting/enduring decisions • Most concerns are addressed • Satisfaction with the process • Decisions perceived as being responsible • In the interest of the majority • Sustain ability • Actualize the agreed upon Community Vision • Cost effective • Builds positive foundation Some decisions that were viewed as being pro-active decisions made in the past were the Capital Improvements Plan,the new Municipal Water Plant,the Comprehensive Guide Plan, the Transportation Plan, social programs, and Emergency Crisis planning. Pro-active decisions were those during which adequate time and information was available to those CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FACILITATION WORKSHOP April 22, 1997 Page 4 making the decisions, budget and financial decisions, and decisions which affect the entire community. Decisions which would affect future generations, generate long term costs, and those which are no longer necessary to support long term plans were also considered to be pro-active in nature. Reactive decisions could be precipitated by such things as a municipal crisis, unique variance requests, early grading requests and proclamations. Other reactionary decisions listed were those made in emergencies for public safety, decisions perceived as being short-term or of little impact, those which had no long term impacts on costs, were not precedent-setting, would have no adverse effect and decisions based on existing policy and reflecting that existing policy. Some things which could pull decisions toward the reactive versus the pro-active were: • Perception • Time constraints (not always) • Degree of precedent-setting potential • Timing in announcing decisions • Level of intensity surrounding the issue can impact the decision • Perception of the level of teamwork • Cost • Crisis • Politics • High emotion • Personal opinions/agendas • Group dynamics • Need to report to other governmental agencies • Range of impact • Failure to ask for(and hear) information • Special interest groups Things which would pull decisions toward the pro-active were: • Strategic management • Consideration of all viewpoints • Adhering to the guiding principles/common threads/values • "Big Picture"thinking • Decisions based on policy • Decisions reflecting existing policy • Decisions made for the greater good of the entire community • Decisions that will impact future generations • Decisions which will generate long-term costs for the City 0 Decisions that it is no longer necessary to support a long-term plan CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FACILITATION WORKSHOP April 22, 1997 Page 5 Craig passed out an assignment which the participants were to complete and fax back to her within a week. The workshop ended at 9:45 p.m.