HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.c. Goals & Objectives � � y- � F'l) 80X '�IQ
� � ����(� 1 f � ��', 11�l�li SI l^d
/� ROSEMUUN i ��tltuNE�C)IR b'.Utst3
l, �' �,ose���� t�y��` �,Y2 :t?3-<1a i t
I�EM # �. 1 �
March 16, 1990
T0: Mayor Napper
Council Members: Klassen
Oxborou�h
Willcox
Wigpermann
��
FRQM; Stephan Jilk, City Admini�trator
; �
RE: Goals & Objectives Summary Repor
Attached p].ease find the report from Decision R�.sources Limited
summarizing the process and outcome of the Goal 5etting Session
of January 30, 1990.
This session was yet another major step in the "community
invalvement process" which began some 20 months ago in May of
1988. This process was formulated to gather input from many
sources/resources in determining the future pla�ining and
direction setting for the Rosemount community .
More speci£ically it was the intent of the City Council to
involve the community through town rneetings, the attitude survey ,
the Advisory Committee and others, to supply information to you
as elected officials, city staff and as appointed off�cials.
This would allow all of us to receive, interpret, prioritize and
begin to imi�lement plans for the future af tile �.ommunity wh-i.ch
represented, as well as possible , the needs, warits and desires of
the people we represent. ,
These are the steps in the process which have beer� completed :
Town Meeting #1 , May, 19$8
Formed Citizens Advisory CommiCtee, August , 198$
� Advisory Committee D�veloPeci (�c�al.s & Strategies, Sept . , 198$
[J of M Urban Desi�n Team Visit, llec . 1988
U of M Urban Design Team Report, Feb. 1989
Town Meeting #2, August 1989
1
ti .
The Citizens Advisory Committee brought bac� t� you a set of
Goa1s and Strategies for sett3ng the direction fnr the future of
the community . Th�s citizen' s report contained six (6) main
areas for development of "future" plans and they were:
1 . Sma11 Town Ambience
2. Downtown
3. Communications
4. Recreational Opportunities
5. Relations with External Entities
6. Economic Developraent
At this juncture in the process it was decided that tt�e elected
and appointed officials should utilize a11 of the input gathered
so far, develop a comprehensive set of goals and strategies as a
basis for a work plan and then implement these goals for the
community .
This then was the stage set for the goals and �bjectives session
of January 30th. The report from Decisions Resources is well
developed and I believe, represents sufficiently the results of
our gaai setting session. I wi11 not reiterate any of the report
here.
I believe the City Council at�d City Staff dealt very effectively
with the input from all sources ut�ilized over the previous 20
months and Che final ranicing of priority for the issues to be
worked on seemed to closely parallel those of the Citizens
Advisory Committee report.
There are three significant issues which I fee"L we must address
from an administrative standpoint in regards tc> these goals and
they are:
1 . Specific �rocesa to follow to compleCe/reach goals set
2 . Time frame for completion of work tasks to implement
strategies tc� reach the goals set .
3. Council/Staff commitment and time involvement to worlc
through the process
Pracess to Follow / Time Frame
We have already set April 30th for our "Open House" to invite the
community in to hear about the goals and objectives set by their
elected officials.
2
Y ,
In order to prepare for that event it will be necessary to
revisit each of the goals set by City Council and staff so that
discussion may take pl3ce on each of them and a firm position can
be determined so that a consistent approach can be presented by
you to the public.
I believe it was agreed that each council member might present
specific goals statements to the public at the Onen House .
Also, naw that the goals and strategies have been set, staff and
council need to begin formulatin� specific work plans on the
goals so as to implement the general strategies set at the goal
session.
I would recommend a series of work sessions to accomplish both of
these. I would hope to hold these work sessior►s beginning the
first week in April and attempt to complete al:l. four over the
following six weeks.
Some of the strategies set to reach the specified goals have
already had some attention and work is progressing on them. If
you review the breakdown of work tasks by time period , we can see
that several items fall into the 0 — 6 month period. Most of
these have received attention by staf€ already .
In order to address these issues as efficiently as possible I
would suggest we group them for each session and attempt to
address more than one issue at a time.
My prapased grouping would be as follows: (not prioritized by
importance but timing necessity)
I. 1) Waste to Energy Plant
2) Industrial Development oa East Side
3) Non Hazardous Waste Disp�sal
II. 1) Balance Small Town Rural Ambiance With Growth
2) Update Comparable Worth Guide Plan
3) Maintaining Open/Rural Areas
III. 1) New Commercial Development Outside of Downtown/
Different Business Types
2) Identify/Recru3t Retail and Industrial Business
That- Work in Rosemount
IV. 1) City Involvement Frocess
2) City Facilities Expansion
3
Council/Staff Commitment — It is obvious to realize when
reviewing the task before us that a cnmmitment to work through
these goal.s and strategies and adopt a work plan for
implearentation is a sizeable one.
Along with ongoing projects involving day to day operations ,
development issues and other special projerts such as the Armory
this process will be taxing a11 of us. At this time I don' t feel
any specific recommendations for additional staffing is
appropriate but I hope yau can envision the potential for those
requests whether for special projects ar simply the added load of
extending beyond our current focus on service ��nd response to the
addition of pragrams to reach our set goals.
As our work sessions take place, specific work tasks are agreed
on and implementation begins to unfold, we wil1, as part of those
discussions, address staffing needs.
One additianal item. T find it very gratifying that as a neutral
observer , Dianne Traxler, of Decision Resources, made the
observation she did at the end of her report. "The session
indicated another very important fact: a solid accord of both
City Council and Staff on the major issues facin� Rosemount and a
surprisingly high level of co�sensus on the approaches to be used
3n examining the issues of the day ."
- I feel confident in the process we are involved in here and look
forward to continued opportunities to have City Staff and Council
work together to reach the goals of the commun:ity.
l�
4
t
, � �
� I��',�1Sl�J►rl
_
Resot�tr� �s Lt .
. � d
CITY OF R08EMOUNT 1990 GOAL$ SESSION
January 30, 1990
� DeG��ion Resourc�$, Ltdn , was retained by the City of Rosemount
to facilitate a goals s�tti�g sess:�on with the Cicy Council and
City Starf, D�.ane Txaxler acted as session facil.itator;
Bill Marris and Linda Wi.ntex served a� session recorders. The
en��.xe process wa� compieted in six hours, the results provided a
, framewoLk for action during the coming year. This overview is
�as�t� up�n the written r�GQrd �ompil�d dt�ring the session.
� Determination of CTitY Goals: � .
T '�h�: � rules for a nomi;�al group brainstorming and prioritization
�, �xe�:ci�e were distributed; �
- �. �i.leat qenQ�r�kion of �.deas in writin�q. Working �ilently and
i.n�e�endently, �artic�.par�ts jot down their responses to the
q�ues�ion.
'� 2 . Round-robin �ceGordinq of ideas. When called upan, each
parti.cipant cqnt�i}autes a si,ngle idea that is recorded on a larg�
�l�.p-chart. Di�c�:ssian of the ideas i$ not permitted at this
time. Completed sheets are taped ta the wall so that they can be
, seen by the group. Thz grou� facilitator continues to call upon
_ the g�,rticipants until �],1 id��� have been recorded, or the group
determines that they have produced a suf�icient number of id+e�s.
3. Serial discu�sion of t�e 2ist of ideas. The participants
- disci�ss each idea on the l��t so that �h�ey are clear about the
mear►ir�g of the ideas. �
� , Yotinq. The particigant� _identify what each of them believes
, _ is the most impo�tant ideas, ;t�ey rank ozder their preferences on
a S�.ip of paper� . �he votes are recorded gn the flip-chart, �snd
th�, vating pat�e.rn is discussed.
W��n �.�imilar ideas were grouged, a list Q� thirty was compiled.
Q�z�tions of clari�ic�tion were then permitted to insure that all
' � par�kicipants und�x'stood each item. �11 participants were asked
; to rarik ordex eaah of the �k�irty issue�, Council � and Staff
� p�eferences wer� tallied separately. .- The results of this
ex��'�i�e are �hown below, : it is noteWprthy that both groups
� agreed on the �two major issues facing the City; however, after
, thase top ranked �.tems, �he �.i.�ts we�e very dissimilar.
3128 Dean Court • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 � (612} 920-0337
�
IS$UE COUNCIL STAFF
�A,NK RANK
Wast�-to-Energy 81ant 1 1
Ir�dµ��rial Develppment or� Ea�tside � s *
�ar��l Use �olicy ��nsensus � 3 *
. , _ . .
T�►X�� yersus Se�v�.ce Needs ' 6
Sou�hside Busine�� Developmet�t
,
Imp�ct af 1990 Legislative s�ssion *
Non�H�zardou� WastR Dispos�l "; •�* '1
. ,' City Input/Ir�volV�ment Proce�s� . 7 ' ; *
� � . � � � � . �
� Westsid� Bus�ne�� Develapmer�t ;� `*
U�dd'�e COMP C�UID� PLAN '"`2 2
�
, -� � , .._
$a�.�3�c� Small. T9k��i Rural Amiai�nce .
_ With Growt�: ,�4
Str�!�t �eGonstr����.on , -
�-.
. , ..
;._ . . ;-_ � ��,�
�ocl�;,�efi�ery Ex�ansian , . : . : .
Cit�i: Facilities Expansion/�on$truction 5
_ -;=
. , �t�'��inc� on 5pecia7. Projects .
U o� M Lands ,'* ;.'- 6
� N�w �s�mmercial D�velopment ou�side of ,:
. <Downtown/Dif��rent Busin�ss mypes Y � 3
��n�t���Aent 5idewa�� Plan -
� ,
� �romo�e Additiona], Senior Housing
� `
Id�ntify/Recruit Re�ail & Ind�strial `� �
' � �usinesses t�at wo�k for Rosemount ;9 "�' '
.
.�:',
,.
�
, A�fiax� Ae�i9�1 ,, ',
. . � � . . . .� . � .,'f � � � . Q�-` � � � � � � � � .
L ��� �+��� �roWth "' 4
. ��. : _
. Six+� ',�nd Type o� C�owth 3n,.Ci�X � * 8 : �
a
. N��� Qf and Re�a�ior�ship �w�,th" ��chool
pistrict
_ _ . 2 -
. �
ISSUE CQUNCIL STAFF
RANK RANK
Cit�r Attractions ,
,A���hetic/Archi���t Guidelines for -, �:
Rawntown ,,: ;:
Un�f�ed communi�y in Appear�r�ce and .
��Feel�' .
Cit�r Staffing . ` ' ..
M��ntaining Open/Rural Areas' S
��
. Towr� G�'een P�.ar� ' ,
_ , - ;_...
The�'� was a rtrs�ng conse�sus bx a ma�jori�y o� the Council an the
� � � �n�n� � ���top ��nk�s� �,�.s�ues; � s�.�,�t�larly, a;�`���ong St��f � consensus � �
, d�Ye�Qp�d around t�ei� eight. top ranked tQpics. But, an intense
' ;" ' =. ' minqrity . list�c� several policy issues. �� These items are marked
,� , � � wi.th ` a * and, ,��ca�}se the �.r�tensity, were �ncluded for further
dis�ussion.
; Y
, ,
Act�,n Plans; .
� . � .� ;�', � r-�
v{
� �Eack�' of the tog ranked i��u�s weze tu,�ly discu��ed. Then,
' ° s����#ic ac�io�� ,: ta be �nd��taken during the coming. year were
„ propossed, When � cansen�us had developsd within th�; group, the
' °�- ��tion step was �e�9rded and:�� defin�.te ��me frame fox completion
� ass3�gned.
I, ��4ste to E��rg� Plant =
. .
�., � Push for ��quis�.tion of the Univers�.ty of Mi.nnesota lands,
subjeCt to n t ��s�ming liabil�ties, {T��p��.ine: 0�2-months)
. . i,
2. Publicize city strategy; '''�rationale �QX position a�d actians.
� � `�, Develop communiGations plan, includ�.3�c� timing and message
c�ori'��nt, (3-�6 mQnths) �>
, � , ;�;' � �
; �, .'pevelo�a ' ho�t �' commun�t�r�, ` relati4nsHip with DakQta County. ,
�.. . ` Ide�i�ify bargair��,#�9 FQin�s. . {�-6 months�F:s, �
�. - �cknowledge"� `�'eceip�, ;Q�,'Y:EIS (EnvirQnmQntal Imp��t Study� .
� �;, �xpQct County to�'�ive up to the letter oi'; fihe EIS a�d;�mploy any
. ; new �.eGhnologie�:as th�y `,eme�ge, (0-2 mQn�hs)
�',
.. .
...
. , .,.
, j,.: - _
;:
`,»'` ,
� ;. .
. 3
�Z, IIpdate COMp Guide Pian
- �. Define prQCess. Summarize avail�ble data and update.
(Timeline; 0-2 m�nths)
, 2, -. , �y July 1, 19�0, hire consultant ,and defin� work program.
(�*�� ,months)
. 3. Implement p�A�ess. (?-�.�. months)
;
, ' .. 4, CompletiQn/1�c��ption af p�,an by June, 1991.
, ,t,
�II, �,an�l Uae �Q�icy Con�at��ua
.
1� ��aff recomyp��dation$ r��;�� be guided l�y current policy.
_ .
. � , , _
,,�.
Z, � Guiding PrihQipals L�nd use decisiqn making pracess will be
a�e�; and �omplet��: . ;,
. , ;:;�
,_. ,
.<r� ,;;.
� I9R � 8a�ance sma�,�;� Town Rura�,� Ambienc� w��� Growth
� �.,�� ���g�cogniz� tt�� `�mportance� qf this is�uie'.� � �� � � � �
' 2. ''' ��lgree on tl�e meaning Q�' this issue., . Select process far
zeaGl�'l�►g agreem�nt, (Time].ina� 3-6 mQntMs)
. ` Com let :., _ ,.
3� �� p e p��cess by the beginning oF`,,the Compreh�nsive Plan
Upda��,. July �., .�990. �:
�1, � �[a���ta3ning p�qn/Rurm1 �A��as
�
�., ' Identify ; the means `=,�p maintaining open/ru�al areas.
('��m�l ine: �-6 �as�n�hs) ,,:
X�� Taxes versu$ Service DTe�ds '� �
�. . j.
,,
• �:` 1. ` Use budgeting and develqp�n�nt review '��ocess td. r
�., (a) Determin� the proper; balance tp -d�fine and p�otect
`� basic S��yiaes;
�(b) +Conside,� �pgrades�, .,�� .;:.
��-
. _
� � � � � � �x��� r:'-".
' �. � . i�„i.� . , . . ..
� .
,'; " ��
VII, "City Inpu�fI�tvo7,ve�temt �process ;' � _
, `''. 1.� ° �; Establish . . `'a poliey -�o continue`;'" citizen #r�V�lvement-
;.
<< . :,_ �om��}�.�cat�or�s wk��nev�r feas��le. (Timel.ine: 3-6 months)
.;. _ ;.
�.,..
' ;;;�:
. . .. .. .. � � � --.J�� . . .
. 4
„ ,;
V��I, Iadustrial Development on $astside
l, � ` Evaluate need/feasibility of providing public services to
- exi��ing indu�tries a�d promoting additional development.
(Timal�ine: 0-6 months)
�_
�. ��. Id+�nt3�Y/����uit �tqta�3, & Industr�.�l Bu�iaess�e that work
�9� �tc►semouAt
1. � Complete '�$��� City" p�o�ess by July, 1�90 (Timeline: 0-6
�nont�s) -
:
, � �2 k �- De��rmi�e � process � fQr ` "�ideritify3.ng busines� . st�itable for
, �2os�mpunt. ,
(3-6 ;mcnths) ..
, , . �,
3. ,',Qetermine pr�cess for �e��uiting bus�,nesses. (3-6 months)
X. .x�apact o� 1990 Leqisl�tiY�� 8e�sio� �;;
� �, Maintain con�c�ct with area legislators, `
��,- tX�. �. Ne�r CQmut����al D�Y�1S�pment Outsi�a of Downtqwn/Different
�t�s��ass Types _
',�
, ,..
1� ; peflne "Aown'�oWn Area. " ,(�imeline: ..�*-6 months) �' �
,. . ,
' _ 2. ' �Assess busin��s�s and s�rvices not ;i�urr�ntly av�ilable in
l�awn�awn Ros�m9�ntR (3-� months)
,� 3+ �� Discus�ion ,' of bu�i}�esses which �hight relocate out of
Dow��own. (3-6 months)
.�- . .. . ,
$I�e , S.'�.ty FS►C���.��.68 E}L�RA8�QA
],, p�termine a process to prioritize at�dj �aeet the city's special ,
need� .to the ye�r. 20oQ. (Tim�line; 3-6 �onths) ,
. , , �
. .. . , �,,
. F'" _ . . � . _ "t. � — �'.e . _ _ . . . , . .
..:, . .- ., � .
_ , . . . � . . ..S.. . . � .�.- � . � . .
X�I1. Non-Haza�dQus Waste Dia�osai �`�
, _
�, " . Examine ': cor�solidat�ng waste manac�em�nt industry ;' locations.
��f�4��,i�ne: 9-2 �pnthsj ,:
';���
�, ° �r�ess term� ;�f permit app�oval (7-l�• months) �:
,. . �
,. . ,. . , ;,, _
,. .
,- ;. .. � . . . �.. r . Y . ...�.
����.. ' .-�,.' '.. .. .
� ... . . -. � �. .�.... � :..�'. . � .,'�". . ..
, Th� �ecord ,jus� reviewed p�rovides a sj��temat�,c wo�kplan for
'. t �`" ���iQn on the �n�jor pric�ri�ies suggest�d by both �ouncil and
,, ,:;
� ' - Staff. Much pf �he emphas3,� ' �s on the de��xmination of processes
� gor decision=mak#.ng, but $�veral of �h� tasks cal�. for the
iu►p��ment�tion 4� -SPeaif�.� �po�icies and P�,�ns. :
., �
5 .�:
.
. ,, •
� Work Schedule;
--,
Pldc�ng the action steps on � timeline iridicates that Staff will
be requ�.red to u�tdertake quite a number of activities during the
. in��r�aediate 3-G month future time period,
0-� �#oath Activ��ies
, ' I-�.� Push �or acquisition ot the Unive�sity o� Minnesota lands,
�ubject to not ���um�.�g ��.ak��.�,ities.
z�4�, Acknowlec�g� receipt Q� EIS (Envix�onmental Impact stud�i) .
� �icp+�G'� County to. live up to.;�l�e letter p� the EIS a�d employ any
n�w. �e�hnolog�.e� .�s they eme�.ge,
,
, . ,I���, D�fins ' p�ocess. S��marize ava�;�able data �nd update.
� � � .� � � -
VI�I�1, Ev�lua�e ne�d/f�as�bility o� provid�.ng publ�ic services
�Q ��i$ting ind���ries and gromoting add�,t�onal development.
IX��,, Complet� .��S�ar City" pi�ocess by Jtt1y, 1990, �;;
. .. - ,, , :-,
�II�T1. Examin� consolidating wast�:. managemen'� industry
�` 1CG�tions.
3*'b I�4Ath ACtiViti9?3 ,",
,
� I-2 . ' �ublici2� '� city stratagy: ratiq�iale for pc�sitian and
, y,. _
' �c�ianS. D�ve�4g communica�ions plan,- . including ,timing and
me�,�age c�ntent.
�-�3, -- pevelQp h�st communi��r relationsh�p with Dakota County.
����3���Y kargait�ing poin�s, ; �, _ ,
_ ,�
�I-2 . B� July 1, 1990, hir�jconsultant and define wo�k program.
` � . IVr2.� Agre� s�n th� me�ni�c��` pf this issue. Select� process for
,� , .
�eac�}�ng agr�em�A�.
�.
_ , � �
IV��. Complet��.,�'process by �he beginning of the CQmprehensive
�'l.an t�pdate, Ju�.X . 1, 1990� _
, -�. ;.t
V��,� Y;,Identi�y ��e means .to .maintaining qpen/rur�l ar�as.
K`; �IT�1; Est�bl�$h a pol�.cy. `: to contint�� ` citize� �,�valvemen�-
. Go�u�n�.�atio�s W1��Aev�� f��$���e• ::
; :4 ,�,
IX-�. D�te�nin� ,;° prQceSs �Q� identifyinq business� 5it�.table for
' -_ �.s, �QSB3AQL1Ylt� ; ` ` ,; : , ;;, .
,.
,
I�C-3. Determine �process for zecruiting bt�sinesses.
, 6
�
.
- � - • �
3-b �tonths (coAt, )
. XI-1, Define "Downtown Area,'�
' XI�2. Assess businesses and .services nc�t currently available in
, DoWntown Rosemoun�.
_ XI-��, piscus��Qr� of bus�.nesses whi�h might relocate out of
pown�own.
. . ,
• ': XII�I. Determine a prQ�es� to priozit.�ze and meet the city' s
� - sp���.�1 needs tr� �he year 2Q40. T.
, - �
, . , - .. . ,.,
7�1�. Mon�h Activ�.�ies
. , J,
II��� Tmplemen�:P�oc�ss. ,:
XI���2. Ass�ss �erms of perm.it approval ,, ;;
.; ' , - . . ' . . riy. . .� � .
. . ... . � � , , � r;' � �,+ � . , . .
199� 'Aotivit�es
� � � � °v` �
���4,. Compl�ti�r�,��ldoption Q�., plan by ,Tune, 1991.
. i�h���. ��a�fiAq c�m speGia,l ��q�eata and a��Y stat��.nq. ; ia qeneral,
wt��� AAt priority issues for, this sessioA, the numlaera of tasks
;
�q . �?� �acompli�bed 3.n the► �^�b mc►nth �i�� period would suqgest
:' �am� c�iscuss3,on , is ,�eedei�. ;
. . ` . . . S�Y�.. .
k•", SuT�,y and Con��usions:
. ,, , . _
...1 ..A'.. -� � . � . .�.���� � . . . ..
.. . .- •:I,� . � .
The::'goals s�ssi,on' aehieved its two braad;�� purposes: ,+; first, an
,���t�g� prior�ti��t�.on wa& c�etex�mined; and, second, a workplan for
19�Q. Was agree�s� upor�. Howi�ver, like ,�ny strategic planning
� �"'� docu��n�, these ,�asults rhau�d not be cansi�dered permanent. They
�hG�t�.� b� eV�l�,���d perio(�����ly and r�=�t�praised, particularly
:' at :.�h� and .of ��,� mpnths, :��e session ��;i�dicated a3�other very .
_.$• �m�i�?�tant fa�t: '- � solid acc�i,�d o� poth ��,�y Council az�d Staff on �
the ; major issu�s faaing Rossmount and a. ��rprisingly. high level
Q� GQt�Sensus on �h�e approa�h�� to be useti�=�in examining the issues
�, . : : : s�f the°day. ' ��: . � , -� -
, �
. �,�;.
, .
.T� , . . . . .. . . . � . . � . . . . � .
' - � - S e..� , � . � . � .
. . .'�Y� . . �{�. � . . �
, . . � � 1•• ..
, u;.. . . . . .. . . . . .. ..
- . . , � , f�*� . . .
. . . , e!v . , � . . . �
. .. . . . .. ' . . �, ' .. � ;� . .
. ' ,. , � .. 7 .. . � � ' .. . ' � � . . �
. .. , .. � . . ... ' .. � , ' � �