The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/8/1991 - Regular0~ AOANp~~ ~. .~ Z J a, 1$ E50\ 8a SFSQUICENTENN~P A Beauti~ulBeginning ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~t~ ~~ C~~ ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION ACTION AGENDA Saturday, June 8, 1991 at 7:30 a.m. Hollins Branch Library ROLL CALL AT 7:55 A.M. RWR ABSENT p,. VIEW VIDEO: "What's Hot in Hampton" (see Exhibits A and B) B. STRATEGIC PLANNING 1. Strategic Plan a. Opening question (see Exhibit C) CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION TO IMPROVE ITS EFFECTIVENESS ~~ iu~~~~ca c j ~~9~8'9 1. ELIMINATION OF COUNTERPRODUCTIVE "WE-THEY" ATTITUDE, I.E. COUNTY-SCHOOLS, CITY-COUNTY, STAFF-PUBLIC, STAFF-COMMUNITY 2. IMPROVE COMMUNICATION WITH CITIZENS - PROACTIVE NOT REACTIVE - "NUTS AND BBORT'ANTE(CUSTOMER ALWAYSIRIGHTRAID RESPONSE) - ATTITUDE IM 3. OFFER ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS q. CREATE BETTER WORK ENVIRONMENT - PLAN TO IMPROVE CURRENT SITUATION 5. MORE SUPPORTIVE ATTITUDE - BETWEEN STAFF - BETWEEN DEPARTMENT HEADS - BETWEEN BOARD AND STAFF - BETWEEN BOARD, STAFF AND PUBLIC 6. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING WITH COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT b. What is a strategic plan? (see article "Cities in the Year 2000" and chart "Evolution of Strategic Management") c. Where is Roanoke County today? d. Where do we want to go? SEE l.a e. Building a Board consensus 2. Building an Image a. What is the Roanoke County image? SOLID b. What do we want it to be? HOW TO BUILD A BETTER IMAGE 1. IMPROVE AND ENHANCE PUBLIC MEDIA EFFORTS 2. CREATE SPEAKERS BUREAU 3. STRONGER PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAM 4. CREATE AND DIRECT POSITIVE NEWS STORIES 5. LOOK FOR THE STORY AND SELL (MORE "FLUFF") c. Building a Board consensus 3. Regional Cooperation -- making sure everyone attends the party and dances BOARD CONSENSUS TO CONTACT DR. MCCOMAS, VPI, AND DELEGATE CRANWELL TO SET UP MEETING WITH OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DISCUSS ISSUES SUCH AS LONG RANGE PLANNING, STATE FUNDING LOSSES, TOURISM, ECH TO DRAFT LETTER FROM SAM 4. What kind of jobs and neighborhoods do we want? BOARD CONSENSUS THAT ZONING ORDINANCE SHOULD INTERPRET PHILOSOPHY OF INCREASED INDUSTRY - SHOULD BE MORE CUSTOMER/BUILDER ORIENTED AND FLEXIBLE, BUT WITH HIGH STANDARDS. 5. "Rightsizing" of staff and services (see article "Privatizing Without Tears") ECH WILL REPORT BACK ON PRIVATIZATION STUDY RECESS FOR LUNCH AT 12:45 P.M. RWR ARRIVED AT 1:00 P.M. C. DISCUSSION OF OTHER SUGGESTED AGENDA ITEMS (see Exhibits D, E, and F) STAFF REORGANIZATION ECH UPDATED BOARD. COMMUNICATION BOARD EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR APPROACH. ECH AND MHA TO REVISE EVALUATION AS SUGGESTED BY LBE AND INCLUDE COMMENT SECTIONS. RE UEST FOR STUDIES STAFF RESEARCH ETC: BOARD CONSEN FOR T NFORM NG PBOARD TOFEMWORRE LOAD AND HOW MUCH MTIME RESPONSIBLE REQUEST WILL TARE. OTHER ISSUES: BOND REFERENDUM: NO CONSENSUS TO FORWARD AT THIS TIME AUTHORITY: RWR SUGGESTED ONE RESOURCE AUTHORITY FOR WATER, SEWER, LANDFILL - NO CONSENSUS TO GO FORWARD TAX STRUCTURE: NEED TO LOBBY TO INCLUDE TOBACCO TAX IN CHARTER AMENDMENT HOTEL ROANORE: SAM SUPPORTS PUTTING ON BOND REFERENDUM - NO CONSENSUS DIXIE CAVERNS: PMM UPDATED STORMWATER UTILITY: PMM UPDATE UPCOMING ELECTIONS: USE DISCRETION IN RESPONDING TO REQUESTS. UTILITY RATE STUDY: HCN ASRED THAT LBE'S ALTERNATIVE BE STUDIED FREEZING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RATE: NO SUPPORT TO ADOPT ORD. ADJOURNMENT: BLJ MOTION AT 3:00 P.M. - UVV D. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? E. ADJOURN SUBCOMMITTEES DEMOGRAPHICS Mel Mayfield (Chair} Director, Research and Development WDBJ Television, Inc. EDUCATION Stephen R. Parson, Ed.D. (Chair) Director Roanoke Valley Graduate Center Beth Doughty Director of Marketing and Research The Regional Partnership Daniel L. Larson, Ph.D. Professor Roanoke College Dale Oakey Vive President Dominion Bankshares Corporation Paul Bryant, Ph.D. Dean, Graduate College Radford University Ronald Coleman Director of Continuing Education Virginia Western Community College Joseph Kirby Director of Curriculum Salem Public Schools Linda Linnartz Assistant Director University of Virginia, Roanoke Extension ECONOMICS Mark D. Heath (Chair) Executive Director The Regional Partnership Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Vice President, Director of Economic Development Dominion Bankshares Corporation Camille Miller, Ph.D. Assistant Dean of Adult Studies Hollins College H. W. Scott Administrative Assistant Botetourt County Schools POLITICS AND GOVERNMEN T Marjorie Skidmore Job Service Manager Virginia Employment Commission Bruce Wood Executive Director Association of Western Virginia Lee Garrett (Chair) Citizen Volunteer Alan Brittle Boone & Company Agent (former) Citizen Volunteer Politics and Government continued .. . Ray Garland Political Columnist Citizen Volunteer C. William Hill, Jr., Ph.D. Professor Roanoke College SOCIALTRENDS Gregory L. Weiss, Ph.D. (Chair) Professor Roanoke College Rita M. Krasnow, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology Virginia Western Community College Wendy W. Moore Director, Roanoke Area Ministries (former) Graduate Student Eberle L. Smith, M.S.W. Associate Professor of Social Work Roanoke College -iv- Yr ~ POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT OVERVIEW Since this study was undertaken in early 1990, a move to consolidate Roanoke City and Roanoke County was defeated at the polls on November 6, 1990. Few, if any, of the conclusions herein are likely to need altering as a result of that failure. The Roanoke Valley is a viable locale, the major area of commerce in the Commonwealth's central and southwest regions. As the study points out, however, the Valley might be called an economic solution waiting for a problem. In general terms, the governments are robust, economically viable and job secure, although many in the work force hold relatively low paying jobs. Politically, the Valley enjoys dedicated elected and appointed officials; representation has been effective and efficient, keeping local governments stable. The negative side of the coin is the long standing and continuing lack of significant cooperation between governments. It is reasonable to conclude that much of that "lack" may be attributed to methodology and procedure rather than obstinacy. Each government has a "shopping list" of capital projects (CIPs) to be undertaken. State fiscal problems and local budget constraints may impede (or in some cases, scrap) implementation of CIPs for the foreseeable future. This portion of the Roanoke Valley Environmental Forecast for the 1990s must be viewed in perspective; it is not "etched in stone." As Dickens' ghost of Christmas yet to come would have it, the future can be altered. It is entirely up to the subject of the visitation. IT APPEARS PROBABLE THAT: • Roanoke City's robust economy will continue; it is healthy and reflects continuity. • The continuing urbanization of Roanoke County will increase demands for higher levels of urban services. • Absent major changes, the minimal growth experienced by the Valley will continue. • Significant cooperation between local governments will continue to be elusive. • Liquid and solid-waste disposal will continue to be a problem for Salem. • The administrative branch of Roanoke County government is likely to remain stable, the ~ elective process less so. • Little change will occur in state and national representation. • Capital projects in both Roanoke City and Roanoke County are routinely questioned by citizen activitist; such scrutiny will likely continue. • The conflicting views in the Valley between "populists" who fear growth and "strivers" who fear complacency will see little or no abatement. • A positive vote on the findings of the Grayson Commission could have a profound influ- ence on Valley growth. P-1 :* THE SPIRIT OF THE MOMENT ROANOKE The City of Roanoke, indeed the entire Roanoke Valley, might be called an economic solution waiting for a problem. It appears to have every requisite for commercial and in- dustrial success in the modern world. It has a fine airport in partnership with Roanoke County; is located on a major north/south interstate with a superb link through the heart of the City; had relatively low costs and hon- est, reasonably efficient government; and has not allowed itself to deteriorate. In fact, the City has taken a series of major steps to upgrade its physical appearance. But there remains a nagging problem of self-doubt, a feeling of somehow missing the boat. It should be pointed out, however, that the City's economy is robust, with an extremely low rate of unemployment. The other side of the coin, apparently, is that most new jobs created are in the service sector, and are relatively low-paying. The local political scene seems increasingly divided between "populists" professing gen- eralsatisfaction with the status quo and "striv- ers" desiring to compete with Richmond, Greensboro, Raleigh-Durham, etc. The "popu- lists" worry that the City is taking on more than it can chew and neglecting the "little person," while the "strivers" worry that the City isn't doing enough to compete for busi- ness and industry. The dominance of the Democratic Party in local politics, affirmed by the 1990 council- manic election, would appear to represent a solid alliance between older and less affluent segments of the City's population. Any political threat to the influence of the City's professional and business core would seem, however, more apparent than real. Even those winning on a slogan of "for the people" seem to know that they must be ex- tremely careful in approaching issues touch- ing on economic development lest they be accused of being "anti•progress." ROANOKE COUNTY Roanoke County, carved out of Botetourt County in 1838, has grown from a population of 5,500 in 1840 to 82,490, including the Town of Vinton (7,990) at present (Virginia Directory of State and Local Governments - 1988). Roanoke County has matured into an urban county in recent years, sloughing off its rural characteristics to asignificant degree. It is a bedroom community to the City of Roanoke. Earlier forecasts saw Roanoke County's population surpassing that of Roanoke City (101,900) by the year 2000. Despite those projections, the Roanoke Val- ley has experienced minimal growth over the past decade. Roanoke City has experienced a slight decline, while the County has noted a slight gain. If there is a single, major negative with regard to the county it would be the apparent reluc- tance of its citizens to embrace inevitable change. While that statement appears to be a contradiction, there are many citizens who deplore the accelerating pace of life in Roanoke County. They would prefer to re- main the serene, easy going, static commu- nitythat existed in the past. A growing number of young businessmen and women in the county, resettling from more cosmopolitan locales, tend to press for more improvements that offer greater opportunities. P-2 F It is unlikely that major changes will occur in Roanoke County in the next decade without some form of valleywide consolidation. Cooperation between the major govern- ments appears to be an elusive program -- more theoretical than practical. While there is to some degree a "meeting of the minds" in certain areas, the significant goals seem never to be genuinely considered. The administrative branch of county govern- ment shows stability; less so the governing body, the Board of Supervisors. A historical review indicates that county politics seems intent upon change. The senior office-holder (as of 1990) has been seated for about one decade, while the supervisor with the least seniority has held office for less than one year. SALEM The City of Salem, formerly the county seat, first organized as an independent first-class city in 1968. It has a strong sense of commu- nity pride that seems rooted in the value of family ties, patriotism, hard work, individual- ism, and honesty. Those who seem to re- spect, support, and extend these values can expect a sympathetic hearing from Salem leaders, because they appreciate directness rather than the pretense and posturing that often characterizes typical bureaucratic and partisan politics. What Salem leaders say and what they think are frequently close to the same thing. The elected leaders of Salem seem interested in their public duties, proud of what they have accomplished, unified among themselves, and willing to remain in office for the foresee- ablefuture. Strong challenges for them have not come forward recently. City employees proudly display city service pins on their lapels and often have lifelong careers in municipal service. The council appreciates this and tries to respond tangibly and intangibly. During the 1980s Salem's total general gov- ernmentexpenditures rose from $13 million in 1980 to $31 million in 1989, with the biggest increases occurring in the middle of the dec- ade. It is not anticipated that growth in gov- ernmental expenditures will continue. Sa- lemites hope that the real-estate tax rate c be kept at the 1990 level of $1.18 per $100 of assessed valuation, or even gradually low- ered to $1.10. No financial relief from state or federal sources is expected. In fact, man- dated expenditures and intergovernmental assitance cutbacks may mean even less will be available in the next decade. Any growth in spending will be paid for by increased tax valuations, better return on the sales tax, the influx of new industries, borrowed money, increased user fees for water and sewer that will make them self-supporting enterprises, and user charges from the electric system. Even if consolidation fails after 1993, it will be possible again for Salem to support voluntary annexation suits from county residents who seek inclusion. It would probably be willing to do this, but it is not expected that many county residents will take this action if consoli- dation isremoved as athreat. Moreover, state policies inspired by the Grayson Commission may limit these annexations. P-3 ,, CHART P -1 POPULATION FIGURES FOR ROANOKE VALLEY BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES P.4 PRIORITIES OF THE COMMUNITY ROANOKE The City has made remarkable strides in cor- recting deficiencies in its physical plant; it must be rated as in better general condition than most competing central cities in Virginia. A large unanswered question is how well the City can sustain contemplated development centering on Hotel Roanoke. While the City would like to construct a new convention cen- ter in the area, it remains to be seen whether the hotel will be commercially viable; and whether the City can support the existing Civic Center in addition to a new convention center nearby. ROANOKE COUNTY Roanoke County has several major projects in development: the Spring Hollow reservoir, a regional landfill, continuing cleanup of the Dixie Caverns landfill, and water abatement and drainage problems in some areas. An- other high priority is the county's quest for a 75/25 mix between residential and business/ industry development. This would allow the county to hold the line on tax increases while providing additional needs and services. Roanoke County had hoped to achieve this goal by the mid '90s; however, the pace has been slow, and the mix of 86/14 that existed when the goal was set is essentially the same. There are grave needs in the public-school system in Roanoke County, e.g., upgrading transportation equipment and facilities. With the probability of state funding diminishing (at least in the short term), education needs will have to come from local sources or be de- layed, if not deleted. SALEM Policy initiatives that will demand the atten- tion of Salem leadership in the next few years are not new in concept, but they will be expen- sive. Salem will sell $5 million in general obligation bonds in 1990. This will give it approximately $25 million in total debt against a legal debt limit of $64 million to extend sewer lines to homes in previously annexed areas and replace sewer lines to help assuage infiltration of ground water into the system. Other improvements will include fa- cilities for the Number One fire station, water storage, the library, and an upgrading of the main computer. Liquid and solid-waste disposal will continue to be a major problem for Salem in the next five years. The sewage-treatment plant, owned by Roanoke City, needs attention to handle problems of capacity and to keep up with new technology. Salem assumes that it may be asked for up to several million dollars to up- grade the plant. Similarly, a 1988 state man- date governing landfill management and the need to increase its solid waste disposal ca- pacity will require the spending of perhaps as much as $4 million. The school board is in the middle of a capital- improvements program that is spending be- tween one and two million dollars to rehabili- tate Andrew Lewis Middle School. The board would like to undertake a similar modification of G. W. Carver Elementary School and the construction of a municipal swimming pool. The priority for both would be less than the services previously mentioned. P-5 `r OCTAL SERVICE FUNDING EXPECTATIONS ROANOKE The various social service agencies would appear to operate in a favorable political cli- mate in the city. Total Action Against Poverty, particularly, has succeeded in establishing a high and favorable profile. Considering mat- ters currently on the City's plate, and the generally tight fiscal posture under which the City's non-school agencies have operated, additional social-service funding can be achieved only through a combination of eco- nomic growth or tax increases. The new Council majority would appear unfavorable to the latter. ROANOKE COUNTY Private funding will become more important with regard to social services in Roanoke County. One response to the needs might well be for the county to match contributions to the United Way. This places emphasis upon individual donations through participa- tion in social services. In any event, it is likely that the county will continue to fund social services at the present level. Total Action Against Poverty and Mental Health Services will continue to receive funding as a line item in the County budget. Other agencies seeking funding at budget time will likely continue to share from a reserve fund. SALEM Salem's support for community-service activi- ties has increased dramatically over the last decade. One informant suggested that Salem leaders have become somewhat more under- standing of social needs, as agency leaders have become less confrontational and ideo- logical. Social service contributions from the city have more than doubled since 1981, going from $92,545 in 1981-82 to a proposed $186,890 in 1990-91. Yet, the council re- quires agencies to prove their cases individu- ally. Agencies that demonstrate service to Salem residents are taken very seriously. Total Ac- tionAgainst Poverty, Center in the Square and the Roanoke Symphony have increased in the esteem of Salem officials as their leaders have succeeded in interpreting their value to the Salem community. Salem expects the future decade to be similar to the past one, with much attention being directed toward environmental issues and school improvements. Contributions to social agencies may or may not increase: That depends on many things, not least on an agency's ability to persuade Salem officials that its programs advance values that Salem admires and that benefit Salem residents. P-6 STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATION U. S. GOVERNMENT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA The City of Roanoke, which used to be two- party competitive in races for the state Senate and House of Delegates, now ap- pears to have settled comfortably into aone- par'tymode, with Democrats heavily favored to win any contested race for a seat in the Gen- eral Assembly representing it. While the city's legislative districts will grow larger -- and take in more of the county -- because of the 1991 reapportionment, the city itself will still be the focal point for two seats in the House of Delegates and one in the State Senate. It seems certain, however, that sub- sequent reapportionments will diminish the city's hold on these three seats. When the legislature mandated single - mem- ber House districts in 1982, it meant that incumbent Democrats could, within reason, carve out their own seats, which argues for a continuation of the status quo until the current incumbents retire. In fact, the most likely serious challenge to a continuation of the status quo in state legislative representation would be from within the Democratic Party. That is, one or more of the incumbents could be challenged from within the ranks of his own party. The same view is applicable to Roanoke County and the City of Salem; except in that case a generally Republican district has been carved out including Salem, the southern portions of the County, and a small portion of Montgomery County. The Roanoke Valley's representation in the Congress is likely to remain with the present incumbents until they retire or are faced with a national political upheaval reflecting the fail- ure of either Democrats or Republicans hold- ingthe White House to keep the peace or the economy on track. While the Sixth Congressional District as presently drawn must still be regarded as two-party competitive, we are certain to see efforts at the 1991 reapportionment session of the General Assembly to strengthen the hold of the Democratic Party on the district in future elections. While the present incumbent appears safe, his retirement would open the district to serious two-party competition. Other things being equal, how the district lines are drawn in 1991 could have a material impact on which party wins the seat. P-7 ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION A G E N D A Saturday, June 8, 1991 at 7:30 a.m. Hollins Branch Library A. VIETiP VIDEO: "What's Hot in Hampton" (see Exhibits A and B) B. STRATEGIC PLANNING 1. Strategic Plan a. Opening question (see Exhibit C) b. What is a strategic plan? (see article "Cities in the Year 2000" and chart "Evolution of Strategic Management") c. Where is Roanoke County today? d. Where do we want to go? e. Building a Board consensus 2. Building an Image a. What is the Roanoke County image? b. What do we want it to be? c. Building a Board consensus 3. Regional Cooperation -- making sure everyone attends the party and dances 4. What kind of jobs and neighborhoods do we want? 5. "Rightsizing" of staff and services (see article "Privatizing Without Tears") -2- C. DISCUSSION OF OTHER SUGGESTED AGENDA ITEMS (see Exhibits D, E, and F) D. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? E. ADJOURN EXl~i Bi T ~' ORGANIZATIONAL VISION AND VALUES "Developing a vision and values is a~ messy, artistic process." "Living them convincingly is a passionate process." Tom Peters, Thriving on Chaos (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988), p. 401. IV-2 Cr ~x~iBiT ~ THE MOVEMENT FROM LOW-DISCRETION TO HIGH-DISCRETION JOBS REQUIRES A MOVE FROM "CONTROL-BASED" TO "COMMITMENT- BASED" ORGANIZATIONS 1870 -1970 Amount of Worker Discretion Amount of Management Directed Work The period of American indusorialization from 1870 - 1970 was characterized by management determina- tion and specification of work processes ("scientific management"), routinized work, minimal worker discretion, pay as the primary worker motivator, and compensation tied to piecework. 1970 -PRESENT In recent years, two trends in the kinds of jobs held by most Americans -- movement from blue-collar to white-collar jobs and from jobs in industry to jobs in service~nformation -- have increased the amount of discretion held by workers. In addition increasing technology and skill/professionalism in the workforce, as well . as changing values among younger workers, have all contributed to increased discretion and the declining effectiveness of -the "control" approach to management. Amount of ~~ Worker Discretion Amount of Management Directed Work Adapted from Daniel Yankelovich and John Immerwahr, PuttinP the Work Ethic rn Work (New York: The Public Agenda Foundation, 1983) "r II-4 ~.u,. EXNi L3iT C OPENING QUESTION ,~-1- b Araule 42 Cities in the Year 2000 THE FORCES OF CHANGE Unprecedented changes taking place in American cities have made it necessary to replace traditional planning and management practices with new strategic-planning techniques. Roger L. Kemp Roger L. Kemp is president of the Center for Strategic Planning and an adjunct professor at the Graduate Department of Public Administration at Rutgers University. He has been a chief executive officer of cities on both the West and East coasts for over a decade. His address is P.O. Box 1101, Clifton, New Jersey 07014-1101. Dynamic changes now under way will have a dramatic impact on the politics and management of American cities. Gone are the sim- ple and stable days for local gov- ernments when revenues were plentiful and public officials could merely adjust tax rates to balance budgets, and when public pro- grams were unquestioningly in- creased in response to citizen de- mands for more services. The many changes taking place in our society have made it necessary to reevaluate the scale and mix of public services, as well as how they are financed. The way that public officials adapt to this changing environ- ment will reflect on their ability to cope successfully with the future. Public officials are typically pre- occupied with the present and are usually reactive to change. Changes are coming so rapidly that the traditional planning and man- agement practices of merely pro- jecting past trends into the future are becoming obsolete. The magnitude and momentum of these changes will have a duect influence on the types of public ser- vice that will be provided in the future, how they are financed, and the extent to which they fit the needs of the citizens being served. By actively planning for the future, elected and appointed officials can create a smooth transition into the future. If this does not occur, citi- zen demands for greater govern- ment responsiveness and change will grow dramatically throughout the nation. The five major categories of changes affecting municipalities are: emerging political trends, ma- jor demographic shifts, evolving urban patterns, rapid technological changes, and new economic factors. Emerging Political Trends • More state and federal laws and court decisions will usurp the home-rule powers of local elected officials and serve to limit their dis- cretion in many areas. • While special-interest groups typically pursue their own narrow goals, such groups will increasingly form coalitions around major com- munity issues of mutual interest. • Many of the political issues brought about by limited revenues - such as the pros and cons of service reductions, or user fees and charges -will elicit no clear-cut response from citizens. • Citizens will demand more services but also will insist that taxes are not increased, making it more difficult for public officials to set program priorities and balance their annual budgets. • Public officials will stress eco- nomic development as a vehicle to raise revenues without increasing taxes. Highly urbanized cities will have to resort to redevelopment for their financial survival. • Responsibility will continue to shift from the federal and state governments to cities, leaving city governments to solve their own problems. Because of the mismatch between revenues and problems, cities with low tax bases may have to resort to service reductions. • More minority-group repre- sentatives, including immigrants, will get involved in the political arena. • Any nPw federal grants will be limited to those programs that help achieve national goals, such as affordable housing, lower un- employment, and shelters for the homeless. Major Demographic Shifts • A growing number of senior citizens will become more politi- cally active because of their avail- able time. ~•.~- ~` • A greater number of smaller households will require more high- density residential developments, such as condominiums, town- houses, and apartments, placing greater demands on existing public services. • There will be more women in the work force, and they will be- come more politically active in the workplace. Issues such as compa- rableworth and sexual harassment will increase in importance. ' • The growing number of mi- norities and immigrants will create new demands for specialized pub- lic services and more bilingual public employees. From The Futurist, September/October 1990, pp. 13-15. The Futurist, published by the World Future Society, 4916 Saint Elmo 190 Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Reprinted with permission. 42. Cities in the Year 2000 Evolving Urban Patterns • Urban sprawl will increase but will be primarily located along major vehicle transportation corri- dorsand public mass-transit routes. • Cities will witness greater "in- fill" development in already ur- banized areas. Land areas that were once marginal will be pur- chased and upgraded for new development. • Older land uses, such as out- dated industrial plants and com- mercial centers, will be upgraded and/or retrofitted with new ameni- ties tomake them more marketable. • In central-city areas, continu- ing high land values will lead to increased gentrifi~~l:ton, further exacerbating the need for afford- able housing for low- to moderate- income citizens. • New ethnic centers will evolve in metropolitan areas. Residents will stress maintaining the cultural traditions, values, and customs of their homelands. Public services will be tailored to better represent these growing urban minority and ethnic population centers. • Higher energy costs and greater traffic congestion will create more political pressure for public mass- transit systems. Emphasis will be placed on multimodal systems that offer greater transportation options to the public. Rapid Technological Changes • More public meetings will be aired on public-access cable-televi- sion stations. These stations will also be used to educate citizens on available services and key issues facing their community. • Computer-management sys- tems will become a common tech- nique to monitor and limit energy consumption in public buildings and grounds. • Advanced telecommunication systems, such as systems with con- ference calling and facsimile trans- mission capabilities, will reduce the number of business meetings and related personnel and travel costs and will allow city govern- ment officials to better communi- cate with their peers across the country. • Increased public pressure for mass transit, coupled with greater -~ ~ .. - _. .. ,. _ _fT~'Sra; c.,vp±yesw~w~~ ^:- -~^-.:.~.. -7F-1 yiY ,L TRADITIONAL PLANNING STRATEGIC PLANNING Short-Range Long-Range Single Issues Multiple Issues Organizational Issues Community Issues Hierarchical Non-Hierarchical Low Involvement High Involvement Directive-Based Consensus-Based Staff Oriented Community Oriented Management Orientation Political Orientation Staff Awareness Community Awareness Operational Focus Policy Focus ~ construction costs, will lead to more-efficient mass-transit sys- tems in densely populated high- trafficareas. Light-rail systems will replace the expensive under- ground subways of the past. New Economic Factors • Rising energy costs will re- quirethe greater use ofenergy-con- servation techniques. • Citizens will increasingly de- mand higher standards and ac- countability for air and water qual- ity, especially in densely populated urban areas. • Taxpayers, while averse to new taxes, will increasingly ac- knowledge that it is the legitimate role of government to provide "safety net" services to citizens (i.e., essential sustenance to the truly needy). • Limited new government rev- enues will be earmarked for those public services and programs with the highest payoff -from both a political and productive standpoint. • The availability of federally funded grant programs will be lim- ited, and greater competition will exist among cities for these funds. They will be earmarked for those cities with large low-income popu- lations and related social and hous- ing problems. • The public will continue to ad- vocate for the "controlled growth" of government by opposing in- creased taxation and the growth of user fees and charges. They will demand greater accountability and productivity for existing services. New Models for Planning Too often, government planning has been reactive, short range, staff oriented, dominated by single is- sues, hierarchical, and generally lacking in community support. New thinking is needed in times of fewer grant programs, complex and inter- related issues, rising expectations regarding services, and public aver- sion to increased taxation to enable cities to optimize their human and financial resources. The private sector has made long-range strategic planning a common practice over the past few decades. Unlike traditional plan- ning, strategic planning is pro- active, long range, and community oriented. Additionally, it involves multiple issues, is non-hierarchical in nature, and helps achieve a pub- lic consensus on the issues and problems facing a municipality. It is imperative that public offi- cials provide a strategic vision for their community. A shared under- standing of issues and goals not only provides a vision of the future, but also helps mobilize all available resources to effectively manage change. It is only through such modern planning practices that public confidence in government can be restored and local govern- ments can successfully adapt to the future. 1691 1 '. f $- ~-b WHY PLAID FOR THE FUTURE`? * The future will happen -- with or without proper planning. * Without proper planning! the organization merel.v reacts to events as they untold. * Proper planning helps to expolit the inevitable by -- --- Shaping the environment. --- Limiting threats. --- Taking advantage of opportunities. --- kesponding proactively to issues. _% $-~-b NEELi FOR MGRS FI~CUSEU PLANNING BY PUBLIC AGENCIES (1) Reduction of state and federal grants. (2) Publics' aversion to increased taxation. (3) Elected Officials unwilling to raise taxes. (4) New era of self-reliancy (local problems = local solutions). (5) New emphasis on raising revenues without increasing taxes. (6 ) Greater competition f or 1 invited new revenues . (7) Need for more multi-year financial planning. (8) Need for more multi-year capital planning. (9) Greater community involvement in the planning process. (10) Realization that planning is an ongoing process and not a "one-shot" effort. B-1-b ADVANTAGES OF DOING A STRATTGIC PLANNING PRAJECT * Imposes discipline on the organization. * Educational prooess - MansFtement staff. * Way to cope with changing conditions. * Provides different planning options. * Makes organization proactive. * Sots or~tanizational priorities. * Provides management/staff with direction. * Can vrovide stability w/ financial resources. * Helps establish public credibility and confidence in your organization. .,,% .~ - .~ - b EVOLUTION OF STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT ~~ c N t4 V C ,.. Effectiveness of Strategic Decision Making Wall•Defined Strategic Framework -Strategically Focused Organization -Multi ear Bud eta y g -Thorough Situation Wltlespread Strategic i Thinking Capability -Annual Budgets -Functional Focus -Gap Analysis Analysis and Competitive -Coherent Reinforcing i -..Static" Allocation Assessments Management Processes of Resources -Eraluatlon of ~ . Negotiations of Strategic Ob~ectlvea Altematlves • Review of Progress ~ i -"pynamlc" I • Incentives Allocation i -Supportive Y#tue System t i ~ of Resources i and Climate Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase3 Phase 4 Financial Planntn9 Forecast•Basetl Plannin g Externally Oriented Strategic Management Planning VBiI!@ -Meet Budget -Predict the Future -Think Strategically -Croate the Future System ,• ter for Strategic Planning 8-~.- b STRATEGIC PLANNING PROJECTS - National Survey of Counties - ALABAMA Jefferson ARIZONA Pima CALIFORNIA San Francisco Santa Barbara COLORADO Denver CONNECTICUT Fairfield DELAWARE New Castle FLORIDA Dade Hernando Hillsborough Martin HAWAII Honol u I u MARYLAND Anne Arundel Prince Georges MASSACHUSETTS Barnstable MICHIGAN Montcal m MINNESOTA Hennepin Ramsey MISSISSIPPI Jones Lauderdale NEVADA Clark Douglas Washoe NEW JERSEY Morris NEW YORK New York Westchester NORTH CAROLINA Alamance Alexander Bertie Carteret Catawba Cleveland Craven Davie Forsyth Gaston Guilford Iredell Lincoln Macon Marti n McDowell Mecklenburg Onslow Orange Person Richmond ~~: P.O. Box 1101, Clifton, New Jersey 07014-1101 • (201) 471-7502 r Center for Strategic Planning NORTH CAROLINA (cont.) Robeson Scotland Stanly Vance Warren Wilson NORTH DAKOTA Cass Richland PENNSYLVANIA Allegheny Philadelphia TENNESSEE Hami Iton TEXAS Bexar Tarrant VIRGINIA Arlington Chesterfield Fairfax Henrico Prince William WASHINGTON King W h atcom ~-i-~ 4/91 P.O. Box 1101, Clifton, New Jersey 07014-1101 • (201) 471-7502 PROBLEM-DRIVEN VS. VISION-DRIVEN CHANGE PROBLEM-DRIVEN CHANGE: • The traditional approach to organization change is problem-driven; it begins by focusing on the current state and what's wrong with it. • While this approach may seem logical, the difficulty is that starting with what's wrong today tends to limit one's view of the possibilities. VISION-DRIVEN CHANGE: • Vision-driven change in non-traditional organizations begins with the creation of a clear and compelling vision of the "ideal future" state. • Designing that ideal future, through several iterations and in considerable detail, brings the vision alive for the change managers and organization members. • The work begins at the "blue sky" level and gradually becomes grounded in a future reality unfettered by the constraints and problems of today. • With the endpoint of the journey so clearly defined, developing a plan for what needs to happen today to make the vision a reality becomes a journey into familiar territory, not a bold adventure into the unknown. Adapted from Bill Veltro an Kari Harrington "Roadmap to New Organizational Territory," Training and Development Journal, June 1988, p.32. rv-3 4r .. _,.. - ~ .. ..._ ~ "" ~ ~ ......_,..._......~. .~w..~.~_-.._ ~$ - 5 PRI~'ATIZIlVG WITHOUT TEARS Somewhere, sometime, virtually every government service has been It sounded so easy. St. Louis could im- COntraC prove the food at its two prisons without additional expense simply by contracting Along the out the meal service. What's more, the city would be out of the business of feeding inmates and could focus on the more of lessons substantive issues of running a big city. Well, not quite. What happens, for in- stance, when the prisons' old freezers break down and food spoils? It's not our problem, says the contractor, Service America, noting that its bid wasn't premised on repairing the old kitchen equipment. Oh, yes, it is, says the city, insisting that the company was at fault for taking so long to decide which new freezers the city should buy. William Kuehling, the city's public safety director, sighs. "Just another irritation in the day-to-day running of a prison facility." The city ended up replacing some of the spoiled food while Service America repaired the old equipment and sped up the process to decide on new equipment. The problems continued. The city was taking so long to process Service America's monthly bills that the firm was being charged interest by its regional office. So an agreement was worked out to have the company submit its bills weekly and have the city respond to them more quickly. These and other hassles haven't dampened St. Louis' enthusiasm for privatization or for its contract with Service America. They simply underscore the need for communica- tion in the process. "And," Kuehling says, "we have to do a better job ofanticipatingall the issues and fully understanding up front what are our responsibilities and what are the contractor's responsibilities. It s a learning experience." What St. Louis has learned could be called the first lesson of privatization: It's not necessarily a cure for whatever ails you. Successfully contracting with the private sector to deliver public services requires plenty of foresight and hard work on both sides. That's a good thing to keep in mind as financially strapped governments look for quick and easy ways to save a buck. lea ner d. ted Out. For more than a decade now, propo- nents of privatization have lived by the --~` - mantra that anything government can do, waV, a lot business can do better. Opponents fear ___--~.---- the loss of government control over es- have been sential public services and express con- cern that cost cutting would come mainly from the pockets of public employees. While such ideological debates persist, many administrators, particularly on the local level, think of contracting with business as a perfectly acceptable alternative to in-house service delivery if the circumstances are right. The current recession has nudged governmental officials to consider contracting out a Hider scope of services. The Reason Foundation, a leading advocate of privatization, reports an increased interest in the process. "You're seeing privatization becoming abudget-sa~~ng tool that both Republicans and Democrats are turning to," says Kevin D. Teasley, the foundation's public affairs director. o le, from Privatization means many things to many Pe p selling Amtrak and public housing units to subsidizing day care centers. But on the state and local level, most of the interest is in contracting out. The practice is particularly widespread among localities, where, at some time in some. city or county, virtually every governmental function has been delegated to the private sector. Elevator inspections, petting zoos, golf courses and public arenas are among the services and entities now run by private enterprises. Along with the accelerated interest in privatization, how- ever, there also is a growing awareness of the hazards of simply handing over public ser~~ices to the cheapest private contractor that comes courting. Governments that don't first consider all of the consequences increase the chances that they will be beset by corruption, poor service delivery and, contrary to their fondest hopes, even cost increases. "'~1ost of the time, the political pressures aren't going to be much help and will be putting you in the wrong direction," says John D. Donahue, an assistant professor of government at Harvard 38 GOVERNING June 1991 $RU & ASSOCIATES ILLt'S"I'RA'i'ION ~-5 University whose recent book, The Privatization Decision, documented the mixed record of privatization. GnntractinH out is generally more suc- ripe for Beater already performs on tts owii. . ;e, servicing vehicles and clea are among the areas in ration is most i e y to succee sernces suc as running prisons an~c police departments are more difficult to privatize successfully. Contracting out works best, Donahue says, when government can pre- cisely analyze what it wants done, stimulate competition for the job, evaluate a contractor's performance and penalize or replace bad contractors. Privatization gew up during the 1980s. The lessons of that decade left savvy public officials with a more sophisticated view of how it can be deployed with the best chance of success. Their experiences can provide a set of guidelines for governments that are considering using this tool in the '90s. BE REALISTIC. The cost of contracting out a service, compared with performing it in-house, must be accurately estimated. "Some of the geatest warfare in the his- tory of privatization has been fought over whether and how privatization saves money," says Steven A. Steckler, a senior manager at Price Waterhouse. "Much of that revolves around the way in which costs are compared." When considering the potential savings from contracting out, for instance, it isn't enough to merely consider the cost of the contract itself. The government will invari- ably spend money to prepare and monitor the contract, and may have to provide some of its own equipment. The cost of monitor- ing acontract is often undervalued because the complications, as in the St. Louis prison food service example, are hard to foresee. Figuring out how much in-house delivery of the service is really costing can be just as difficult. While the direct costs are fairly clear, it is harder to determine which over- head and administrative expenses can be saved. Contracting out a certain service ma nominall reduce the work load in suc~i a arlments as rsonnel, accounting an purc asing, but it isn't necessarily going to cut a wor orce. In Los Ange es ounty, it was equen y cCtfficult to de- termine what amount of overhead you could actually do away with," says Chris Goodman, a contracting coordinator with the chief administrative office. County board members were con- cernedthat administrators weren't reducing overhead expenses enough when a service was contracted out. So for the past year, the county has been limiting the amount of overhead it assumes 40 GOVERNING June 1991 cannot be reduced in any privatization effort to 20 percent of the cost of the service. That's supposed to more accurately reflect the true cost of providing a service and prod adminis- trators to reduce overhead when a sen~ce is contracted out. KNOW THYSELF. It's hard for governments to gauge what to expect from a private contractor without first thoroughly analyzing their own service delivery. High costs may relate to a management, technical or capital problem that privatization alone would not solve. John Good, a labor relations consultant who has worked with Philadelphia, It}bb Cknppell phnrogrnph Harvard's John D. Donahue thinks that, most of the time, political pressure to privatize 'will be putting you in the wrong direction.' says governmental inefficiency often ;tens from having too many bureaucrats and too few actual workers-a problem that could continue even if the work is ~ntracted out. "Privatization hardly ever deals with the fundamental system of how the work gets done," Good says. Pinpointing an agency's service de- ~i,~ery problems also gives the govern- ment abetter understanding of what standards to set for a private provider. "If you don't know what you want and aren't able to implement that," says Peter Hames, assistant city manager of Tracy, California, "how are you going to get somebody else to do it?" One of the largest maintenance con- tracts ever let between a local govern- ment and a private company failed largely because of insuf$- cient preparation on both sides. Los Angeles County hired Holmes & Narver Services Inc. to maintain its fleet of more than 5,000 vehicles at a cost of $12 million a year for five years. But serious problems developed because the contractor had underestimated the cost of maintaining the vehicles and the county had kept inadequate records of the size, age and con- dition of its fleet. The contract was terminated in March after less than three years, and the county contracted the work out to three firms. BE FLEXIBLE. While the service to be provided must be clearly defined, businesses should be given room to innovate. When Illinois was seeking proposals to develop lodges in its state parks, for example, interested contractors had to wade through several volumes of detailed specifications. The state's financial participation in a project was fixed at no more than 35 percent of the developers' costs. Besides attracting relatively few proposals, the state was mandating projects that didn't necessarily fit market demand. The process has been dramatically simplified in the past year, says Jim Taylor, senior project officer for the Illinois Department of Conservation. Now the state asks potential developers four general questions about an impending project: Who are you, what do you think ought to be built, what are the financial numbers supporting the project and, perhaps most important, what do you need from the state? The change in procedure has encouraged more developers to seek approval for a project and more original thinking about how a project ought to be designed. "Because the government. is steering instead of rowing," Taylor says, "it has more control because it can choose from a far wider range of options." LOOK BEYOND COSTS. A contractor's experience, performance record and internal controls are at least as im- portant asthe cost of its proposal. The price was right when Whittier, California, began a three-year contract with Community Transit Services to run its bus services. But the city had little interest in continuing the affiliation when the contract expired last year. Too many trips had been canceled because buses broke down or drivers were unavailable. Linda Creed, the city's transit director, thinks service was hurt by the high turnover and uneven quality of the ~-5 The strangest obstacles to privatilzaaion `are often placed.. by public,. , employee unions. company's local managers. Partly as a result of the experience, Whittier first looks at a potential contractor's qualifi- cations before paying attention to the price. Whittier now contracts with ATE/ Ryder for transit service. In New York state, officials were cha- grined to read newspaper stories saying state agencies were doing business with companies that either had been linked to organized crime or indicted for violating environmental, labor or other laws. It was particularly embarrassing that a company could be disqualified by an agency for being unreliable or irrespon- siblebut hired by other agencies unaware of the company's past. Two years ago, Governor Mario M. Cuomo directed the state's nine major contracting agencies to organize a special council to develop a uniform, detailed set of questions to be answered by contractors and large subcon- tractors before a contract could be signed. The agencies were also ordered to start sharing information about these businesses, particularly anything that could be construed as negative. This arrangement enabled two agencies to discover that LaCorte Electrical Construction and Maintenance Inc., the low bidder on several state electrical contracts, and Kenneth P. LaCorte, one of its owners, pleaded guilty last year to charges of larceny and demanding kickbacks from employees while working on state and local government contracts. STAY IN THE RING. To ensure that a rivate business will have competition_ or a contract, allow a government a enc to bid on it as well. - ----- Phoenix_affers the most compelling example. In 1983, offi- cials 'vided the city into five districts for collecting residential refuse an iC e ~ s. u ey opera a tau ous y;~~eid- ing t~iat no more than two of the districts could be serviced by private contractors. One of the districts was won by National Serv-All, which, just a few months into its five-year contract, --- -.--- became the subject of rf equent_com-p7aints a ut poor sernce. The compIairits were so widespreadt-fiat a city count even held- a special meeting on the gar-bage service:-PTioenix ended up taking over some of the routes and brought the service up to standard, charging National Serv-All for the expense. Within the year, the company sold its Arizona corporation to Waste Management, which took over the Phoenix operation. i', Nevertheless, says Ron Jensen, the city's public works director, ~, "there was a lot of bad will regarding contractors." As a result, ~, the city refined its own practices, reduced maintenance ex- 'i penditures by 25 percent, cut operating costs and automated more of its trucks. These changes enabled Phoenix to prepare the lowest and winning bid for all of the districts by 1989. ~ The uncertainty of knowing which districts it will be serving ~ in future years keeps the public works department nimble. Winning bids are determined a year in advance. If the city loses a district, it cancels orders for new trucks, freezes hiring for h truck driving positions and transfers drivers to other city de- partments or to new routes elsewhere in the city. `` "We have learned how to compete," Jensen says. "There havelieen a-Tot o ~ uc viTyimprovements that have come GOVERNING June 1991 41 B-5 is that as long as you do your job, you've got a job," Ford says. "Ifyou destroy that, you can also hurt the. morale and productivity of the rest of vour work force." COMMIT FOR THE LONG HAUL. A gov- ernment shouldn't expect its role to end when it signs a out of this." A 1988 report by the budget director showed that sanitation was the only city service that had not become more expensive over the previous 10 years. TAKE CARE OF YOUR OWN. Provisions should be made for government employees who could lose their jobs as a result of contracting out. The strongest obstacles to privatization are often placed by public employee unions. "The reason for privatization is cheap labor," says Al Bilik, president of the AFL-CIO's public em- ployee department. That might be just fine for taxpayers who don't think public employees ought to paid substantially more than private em- ployees for comparable work. And, in some cases, administra- tors may be deliberately trying to cut the size of the govern- mental work force through privatization. That can set the stage for a classic management-labor confrontation that many man- agers try to avoid. Because of these kinds of concerns, says Irwin T. Da~~d, a p~utner with Deloitte & Touche, an inter- national accounting and consulting firm, "it's a lot easier to start a new service than contract for something you're already pro- viding." But even when contracting for an existing service, there are a number of steps governments can take to limit clashes with labor. They can reduce the government work force through attrition, find other government jobs for public employees or help place them in the private sector, and they can require contractors to give laid-off public employees preference when hiring, says Harry P. Hatry, a privatization specialist at the Urban Institute. Ulysses Ford, Houston's public works director, says it's important that municipal employees not lose their jobs from privatization; even ou a re uces some o e savings from contracting out. One o~t~ i~Ic eas of worl"ang--Tor tTi-e city contract with a private provider. Follow-through is impor- tant. The success of a privatization effort often de- pends on an agency's ability to make sure the business adheres to the contract, properly delivers the service and handles customer com- plaints. Officials have learned the hard way that there needs to be accountability on both sides. Early troubleshooting can prevent minor problems from growing into disasters. "If the only time you see your contractor is when he's in trouble or when you have com- plaints," Steckler says, "then you're doing something wrong." Monitoring a contractor can be difficult without enough access to information. It's important to specify up front what infornation is required from a contractor. Officials in Auburn, Alabama, have been frustrated that Waste ~Vay Inc., which operates a solid waste landfill for several area communities, refuses to share its financial information. Landfill fees have nearly doubled in the past five years, says city manager Doug Watson, and without insight into the firm's costs, "there is some feeling we are being treated unfairly.° Auburn and other neighboring communities are now considering building their own landfill or negotiating jointly with Waste Way for more favorable terms. By contrast, Auburn has been pleased that Metcalf & Eddy Inc. is willing to give the cih- access to computerized inforn~a- tion about a wastewater treatment plant it runs for the city. "That's a major step to having openness behveen the public and private sector on a joint deal," ~~'atson says. erhaps the single most important point governments should remember is that they remain accountable for the quality and cost of public services even when those services are provided by outside contractors. Some officials have learned this the hard way. "Especially in the early days of privatization," says Irwin David, "governments said, `It's yours. Don't darken our door again.' " These days, doors like William Kuehling's in St. Louis stay open to contractors. After the city and Ser~~ce America resolved the conflicts over spoiled prison food and billing procedures, both sides designated account managers to work together and iron out amp additional kinks. Privatization works, Kuehling says. "The key is keep working at it." ^ 42 GOVERNING June 1991 Pnu/C~rra/~/ro~ogrn/~h Phoenix's public works department has won back all of the garbage collection service that once was privatized. `We have learned how to compete,' says department director Ron Jensen. EXI--iair .~ MEMO - 5/28/91 To: Elmer Hodge, Mary Allen From: Lee B. Eddy Subject: Agenda for June 8 Planning Session In response to Mary Allen's memo of 5/22/91 and Mr. Hodge's oral request for suggestions by this date, the following are my recommendations for long-range planning topics to be discussed at our June 8 session at the Hollins Library: A. COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Communications between Board members and the County Administrator and County Attorney. 2. Communications between citizens and the County government. 3. Communications between County government and neighboring governments. 4. Periodic performance evaluation of the County Administrator and County Attorney (see the attached information I received in Richmond on 1/11/90). B. FINANCIAL TOPICS: 1. Economy in government. 2. Productivity by County staff. 3. Privatization considerations. 4. Building a larger undesignated fund balance. 5. Bond issue referendum: Content and timing. 6. Economic development policies. 7. Tax structure. 8. Budget process. C. REGIONAL SERVICES: 1. water 2. Landfill 3. Libraries 4. Airport 5. Explore D. COUNTY FACILITIES AND SERVICES: 6. Sewer 7. Storm Drainage 8. Public Transportation 9. Hotel Roanoke 1. C.I.P. 2. Planning & Zoning, Growth Policies 3. Parks & Recreation 4. Greenways 5. Roads 6. Schools 7. Recycling 8. Storm Drainage cc: Supervisors, LBE FOI File ~~ ~ ~ '~~ / :J I j 1 J PRESENTATION TO NEW SUPERVISORS January 11, 1990 by ALLAN T. WILLIAMS 1. Who we work for: the whole Board 2. Politics and Policy and Administration 3. Manage staff: one "boss" 4. Expect: costs, alternatives, action, recommendation, background, reasoning, dissent, dedication, goals and objectives, consistency 5. Report 6. Rapport: honest and open 7. Support and dialogue 8. Performance in public, evaluation in private 9. Different Strokes/Different Folks 10. Contracts 11. Hiring and Firing and Leaving 12. Code of Ethics: ICMA ~XH~i 8rT -D r ~XHi6iT ~ HP,rTOVm oc~lxrY aCXJN!'Y R PgtFL~Fd~T(~ EVAIIJATION ~Rr'I CSJ[JNI'Y AIMIIIIS'II2AT~R: bVAIL~ZOR• (signature) Period covered by this rating: Factor I - pN ~ ~ ~ ~ v a ~ c~ ~ ~ a d Q> a aai ~ 1. ~cecution of Policv Does he understand ani caQply with the overall policy, laws, and philosophy of the ozganization? Do his efforts lead to a~ooessful aooQtplishmearts of goals and the adapted work program? Does he measure results against goals and take corrective action? 2. et• Is his budget realistic? Is it prepared in a good format? Is it prepared cn time? Does he control e~enses within the set levels of the budget? 3 . Plan*+~ ~. Is he familiar with C~amty's policies, objectives, and practices? Does he translate these policies, objectives, and practices into specific P~~? 4. Reportir~a. Does he submit aerate and complete staff reports on a regular sdyedule? Are they readable? Are staff reports concise, to the point, and submitted with appropriate reoomnendations when necessary? 5. Staffing. Has he developed and implemented a good policy? Is the staff professionally/ted~nically competent? Does he support the staff wher- required? 6. Leadership. Does he direct the staff and fows their efforts? Does he encourage staff initiative? Does he ?~~ow what is going on with all major projects? Does he motivate the staff? Is he fair in his dealings with the staff? Is he willing to present unpopular ideas or reports to the omission and public when necessary? ~Xh18iT ~ FdCtAr II - , RaA~ZCJNSFD:PS 7, 7nt~rrr~mrTm~rsr~al RelatlOns DOeS the QDlalty Administrator work effectively with other federal, state an3 local gvverrIIflent representatives? 8, ~e,~mity Relations. Does he skillfully repmeserrt the ~Y ~ the P~-S. radio, and television? Does he properly avid politics aryl ~*+; ~*+~+, r? Does he show a genuine interest in the o~aiity? Factor aI 9. Imacination. Does he show originality in approadiii~4 problems? Does he cs~eate effective solutions? Is he able to visualize the iaplications of variws ap~oad~es? 10. Obiectivity. Can he oocsider differing views or opinions in a rational, irnpet~ac~al aar~er? 11. Drive• Is he energetic, willing to spend whatever time is ne~oessary to do a good job? Does he have good mental an3 physical ~~+,~,; *+~? 12. ~isiveness. Is he able to reams t;,,,oiy decisions an3 initiate action, but not be c~ulsive? 13. Attitude. Is he Fnt2n~siastic? Oooperative? Willing to adapt? 14. sS Does he have the m~urage of his oa~rvictions? Is he firm when mnvinoed, but not stubborn. WF~,IL FFRFIC~ Has he directed the overall efforts of Hanover Cbtatty in an above average manner during the past mont2LS? Rating di en~eeerl ~~ pity Admini~strdtor on Signature, Cbtalty motor ~ V ~ ~ ~ fW.+ ~ < > ~ i U Yes No ICMA Code of Ethics ~x ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ with Guidelines As Adopted by the ICMA Executive Board in May 1987 Be dedicated to the concepts of effective and democratic 1 • local government by responsible elected officials and believe that professional general management is essential to the achieve- ment of this objective. Affirm the dignity and worth of the services rendered by • govermnent and maintain a co~tructive. creative, and practi- calattitude toward urban affairs and a deep sense of social respon- sibility u atrusted public servant. Guideene Advice to Official of Other Municipalities. When members advise and respond to inquiries from elected or appointed officials of other municipalities, they should inform the administrators of those communities. Be dedicated to the highest ideals of honor and integrity in all • public and perwnal relationships in order that the member may merit the respect and confidence of the elected officiaLti of other officials and empbyees, and of the public. Public Codidence. Members should conduct themselves so as to maintain public confidence in their profession, their local govern- ment, and in their performance of the public trust. Impre~ssioo of Influence. Members should conduct their oflicial and personal affairs in such a manner so as to give the clear impression that they cannot be improperly influencxd in the per- formance of their official duties. Appointment Commitment. Members who accept an appointment to a position should not fail to report for that position. This does not preclude the possibility of a member considering several of- fers or seeking several positions at the same time, but once a bona fide offer of a position has been accepted, that commitment should be honored. Oral acceptance of an employment offer is considered binding unless the employer makes fundamental changes in the terms of employment. Credentials. An application for employment should be complete and accurate as to all pertinent details of education, experience, and personal history. Members should recognize that both omis- sions and inaccuracies must be avoided. Professional Respect. Members seeking a management position should show professional respect for persons formerly holding the position or for others who might be applying for the same posi- tion. Professional respect does not preclude honest differences of opinion; it does preclude attacking a person's motives or integrity in order to be appointed to a position. Confidentiaety. Members should not discuss or divulge informa- tion with anyone about pending or completed ethics cases, except as specifically authorized by the Rules of Procedure for Enforce- ment of the Codc of Ethics. Seeking Employment. Members should not seek employment in a community having an incumbent administrator who has not re- signed or been officially informed that his or her services are to be terminated. Recognize that the chief function of local gorermm~tt at all 4 • times is to serve the best interests of a0 of the people. I.atgth of Service. A minimum of two years generally is consid- ered necessary in order to render a professional service to the municipality. A short tenure should be the exception rather than a recumng experience. However, under special circumstances it may be in the best interests of the municipality and the member to separate in a shorter time. Examples of such circumstances would include refusal of the appointing authority to honor com- mitments concerning conditions of employment, a vote of no confidence in the member, or severe personal problems. It is the responsibility of an applicant for a position to ascertain conditions of employment. Inadequately determining terms of employment prior to arrival does not justify premature termination. Submit policy proposals to elected otlicialc; provide them 5 • with facts and advice on matter of policy as a basis for making decisions and settittg community goals, and uphold and impkmatt municipal policies adopted by elected oficials. Co~dlicting Roles. Members who serve multiple roles-working as both city attorney and city manager for the same community, for example-should avoid participating in matters that create the appearance of a conflict of interest. They should disclose the potential conflict to the governing body so that other opinions may be solicited. Recogniu that elected representatives of the people are enti- 6. fled to the credit for the establishment of municipal policies; responsibility for policy execntioa rests with the members. Refrain from participation in the election of the members of 7 • the empbying legislative body. and from all partisan poetical activities which wou~ impav perfornuuce as a professional ad- ministrator. Guidelines Elections of the Goveraiag Body. Members should maintain a reputation for serving equally and impartially all members of the governing body of the municipality they serve, regardless of party. To this end, they should not engage in active participation in the election campaign on behalf of or in opposition to candi- dates for the governing body. 12 PM August 1987 ~XHiBiT ~ Other Elections. Members share with their fellow citizens the right and responsibility to exercise their franchise and voice their opinion on public issues. However, in order not to impair their effectiveness on behalf of the municipalities they serve, they should not participate in election campaigns for representatives from their area to county, school, state, and federal offices. Elections on the Council-Manager Plan. Members may assist in preparing and presenting materials that explain the council-man- ager form of government to the public prior to an election on the use of the plan. If assistance is required by another community, members may respond. All activities regarding ballot issues should be conducted within local regulations and in a professional manner. Presentation of Issues. Members may assist the governing body in presenting issues involved in referenda such as bond issues, an- nexations, and similar matters. Make it a duty continually to improve the member's profes- s sional ability and to devebp the tmmpetence of associates in the use of nrmagement techniques. Keep the community informed on municipal affairs; ettcour- • age communication between the citizens and a0 municipal officers; emphasize friendly and courteous service to the public; and seek to improve the quality and image of public semce. 1 O• Resist any encroachment on professional responsibilities, believing the member should be free to carry out official policies without interference, and handk each probkm without discrimination on the basis of principk and justice. Guideline Information Sharing. The member should openly share informa- tion with the governing body while diligently carrying out the member's responsibilities as set forth in the charter or enabling legislation. Handle a0 matters of personnel on the basis of merit so • that fairness and impartiality govern a srcmber's deci- sions, pertaining to appointments, pay adjustments, proatotions, and discipline. Guideline Equal Op~ortrmity. Members should develop a positive program that will ensure meaningful employment opportunities for all segments of the community. All programs, practices, and opera- tions should: (t) provide equality of opportunity in employment for all persons; (2) prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, sez, national origin, political affiliation, physical handi- caps,age, or marital status; and (3) promote continuing programs of affirmative action at every level within the organization. It should be the member's personal and professional raponsibil- ity to actively recruit and hire minorities and women to serve on professional staffs throughout their organization. Seek so favor, believe that personal aggrandizement or • profit secured by confidential information or by misuse of public time ks dishatest. Guidelines Gifts. Members should not directly or indirectly solicit any gift or accept or receive any gift-whether it be money, services, loan, travel, entertainment, hospitality, promise, or any other form- under the following circumstances: (!) it could reasonably be inferred or expected that the gift was intended to influence them in the -performance of their official duties; or (2) the gilt was intended to serve as a reward for any official action on their part. It is important that the prohibition of unsolicited gifu be limited to circumstances related to improper influence. In de minimus situations such as tobacco and meal checks for ezamplc, some modest maximum dollar value should be determined by the mem- ber as a guideline. The guideline is not intended to isolate mem- bers from normal social practices where gifts among friends, associates, and relatives are appropriate for certain occasions. Investments in Conflict with Official Dutks. Members should not invest or hold any investment, directly or indirectly, in any finan- cial business, commercial, or other private transaction that cre- ates aconflict with their official duties. In the case of real estate, the potential use of confidential in- formation and knowledge to further a member's personal interest requires special consideration. This guideline recognizes that members' official actions and decisions can be influenced if there is a conflict with personal investments. Purchases and sales which might be interpreted as speculation for quick profit ought to be avoided (see the section below on "Confidential Information"). Because personal investments may prejudice or may appear to influence official actions and decisions, members may, in concert with their governing body, provide for disclosure of such invest- mentsprior to accepting their position as municipal administrator or prior to any official action by the governing body that may affect such investments. Personal Relationships. Members should disclose any personal relationship to the governing body in any instance where there could be the appearance of a conflict of interest. For example, if the manager's spouse works for a developer doing business with the local government, that fact should be disclosed. Confidential Information. Members should not disclose to others, or rise to further their personal interat, confidential information acquired by them in the course of their official duties. Private Empbyment. Members should not engage in, solicit, ne- gotiate for, or promise to accept private employment nor should they render services for private interesu or conduct a private business when such employment, service, or business creates a wnflict with or impairs the proper discharge of their official duties. Teaching, lecturing, writing, or consulting are typical activities that may not involve conflict of interat or impair the proper discharge of their official duties. Prior notification of the govern- ing body is appropriate in all cases of outside employment. Representation. Members should not represent any outside inter- est before any agency, whether public or private, except with the authorization of or at the direction of the legislative body of the governmental unit they serve. Fadorsetrtettts. Members should not endorse commercial prod- ucts by agreeing to use their photograph, endorsement, or quota- tion in paid advertisements, unless the endorsement is for a public purpose, is directed by the governing body, and the member receives no compensation. Examples of public purposes include economic development for the local government and the sale of local government products. Members' observations, opinions, and analysts of wmmercial products used or tested by their municipalities are appropriate and useful to the profession when included as part of professional articles and reports. PM PM August 1987 13 EXltieir ~ Performance Evaluation: Evaluate or Not? That is Not the Question Lyle J. Sumek valuation is a fact of life. We are al- Eways evaluating, whether it be perfor- mance of a symphony, a sporting event, a meal, another person's behavior, or daily experiences. It is easier to evaluate an object than it is to evaluate a person who is likely to react to our comments. When eval- uating aperson, we also find it easier to com- ment about them to others than to them di- rectly. In response to this difficult task, mayors and councilmembers have ofun relied on informal comments regarding the manag- er's performance-using their own methods of conveying their desired message to the manager. A local government manager's per- formance evaluation can take place in a vari- ety of settings that might include the Rotary Club, a local bar while analyzing that eve- ning's council mating, at community events, or through informal comments made to city employees. The basic question regarding manager performance evaluation is: What degree oJjormality is desired? Unfortunately, no single best method has ban identified for conducting an evaluation of the local government manager. This article attempts to: • Present some simple concepts on local gov- ernment manager performance evaluation Pia • Define the elements of a manager evalua- tion • Reflect on the realities of .the manager evaluation in the 1980s, both from the manager's perspective and from the local council's perspective • Outline key learning points and guidelines for improving the performance evaluation process for loca! government managers The thoughts and comments offered here represent an accumulation of experiences and observations, compiled in the author's experi- enx as a designer of performance evaluation processes, as a facilitator of these processes, and as a counselor to mayors, city councils, and local government managers. Performance Evaluation: Basic Definition The evaluation process comprises three basic stages: (1) reflection on past performance, (2) identification of goals and direction for the next year, and (3) development of action plans for implementing those goals and for overall performance improvement. Management literature defines perfor- mance evaluation in a variety of ways. From this author's perspective, performance evalua- tion as related to the local government man- ager is defined as: Assessment of a manager's performance in completing assigned tasks and implement- ing planned programs and services; assess- ment of a manager's behaviors against de- fined standards of performance; identification of future work objectives and tasks; and development of specific action plans for future implementation of goals and for more eRective management of the local government organization. The specific reasons for conducting perfor- mance evaluations may vary among local communities. Several general purposes in- clude the following: • To energize the local government manag- er's performance • To modify and change the individual be- havior of the manager • To recognize and reinforce positive accom- plishments during the past year • To identify and learn from setbacks and crises in order to prevent them in the fu- ture • To strengthen the working relationships PM February 1988 ExHi Bi r D among the mayor, council, and manager To exchange feedback, observations, and feelings regarding the manager's perfor- mance during the past year To establish the upcoming year's goals and direction for the locality, for management, and for the individual To develop and commit to action plans for accomplishing goals and improving perfor- mance The performance evaluation should be seen as a team effort by the mayor, the council, and the manager. Observations and Realities Local government managers have always struggled with the issue of performance eval- uation. In the service-0riented municipal envi- ronment of the 1980s, gaining insights into the differing perspectives and barriers affect• ing performance evaluations is important. The Manager's Perspective Local government managers show little agree- ment on the issue of performance evaluations. Some myths concerning performance evalua- tions are reflected in the following comments: • "I am evaluated every day I come to work. If they do not like my performance, they may fire me." • "The council is going to change soon, so why bother doing the evaluation now?" • "My nerves are raw from bad experiences at the last several council meetings, so why do I want to relive those bad experiences again?" • "One counciimember is pushing for evalua- tion. Iwonder if he is out to fire me. Maybe I should not procxed." • "Never get a council together when you do not know what is going to happen, because other managers have done that and ended up getting fired as a result of the process." • "Do individual councilmembers have their own hidden agendas, and will my evalua- tion become a politicized process for ex- pressing personal agendas?" These comments reflect many managers' personal concerns regarding the performance evaluation process. Every manager has either heard about or experienced firsthand bad per- formance evaluation processes. In one city, a councihnember collected negative comments about a city manager in a "black book." When he reached page 20, he called for the evaluation process. The result? The manager was fired. In spite of horror stories such as these, a good process has the potential to be a signifi- cant learning experience for the local man- ager. The goal is to enhance the manager's capacity to manage the organization and ac- complish positive results in the community. The Council's Perspective City or town wuncilmembers have differing perspectives and concerns regarding the de- sirability of and the most effective process for conducting performance evaluations. These may include: • Preference for one-on-one versus group evaluation, which provides an opportunity to push personal agendas, avoid group norms or achievement of consensus, cir- cumvent the open meeting law, or level with the manager outside the group. One primary reason for preferring a one•on-0ne is that some individuals may distrust thew fellow councihnembers. • Dislike for evaluating others due to lack of experience in conducting performance eval- uations, uncertainty of outcome, or nega- tive experience with past processes because of unclear standards and processes for con- ducting the evaluation and "personal at- tacks." • Time-consuming delays on evaluations due to the difficulty of getting responses, com- pleting forms, and attending meetings. • Uncomfortable feelings that the manager evaluation actually reflects the council s performance-an evaluation of the policy team (mayor, council, manager, and top management staff}-which maybe threat- ening to some oouncilmembers. • Questionable accuracy of the available data-much of the feedback on the manag- er's performance comes from the negative " 20 percent" who are against everything the local government does-those individ- uals who call the city, write letters to the editor, and complain at council meetings. • Concern that a positive relationship with the manager may result in council's focus- ing only on the manager's positive accom- plishments. • Belief that evaluations are simply a forum for political rhetoric-insincere comments and political posturing. • Professional domination-the manager will emphasiu his or her accomplishments, leaving councilmembers with minimal opportunity for dialogue. Examples of some myths from the council perspective concerning performance evalua- tions include: • "No big deal. We are simple people in a simple business, and the evaluation process PM February 1988 Ex~isir 7~ m The evaluation of a local government manager di,,~"ers in many ways from that of a corporate executive or manager in the private sector. m is going to have minimal impact on our daily operations." "The only reason we are doing the perfor- mance evaluation is because the manager wants more money." "The performance evaluation provides an opportunity to anticipate issues and to pro- vide a firm direction for the manager." "I have done evaluations in my own busi- ness, and I am the expert on how they should be done." These diverse attitudes about evaluation make it necessary for the council to under- stand why it is doing the performance evalua- tion, and to deurmine what is its desired end result. Barriers to Fdectire Performance Evaluations In response to pressures for increased pro- ductivity, many localities have developed rather sophisticated, formal performance evaluation systems for managers, while others have relied on informal discussions. Common barriers to effective performance evaluations include: • Focus on past performance with little em- phasis on future direction • Emphasis on complex numerical evaluation rather than on substantive data • Vague job standards and undefined role expectations • Failure to establish a strong link between manager performance, the evaluation sys- tem, and compensation • Form structure that does not allow for per- sonal comments, observations, or develop- ment of action plans for improvement • No means for continuous monitoring of performance-resulting in focusing only on the negative or most recent observations • Complexity of task and vague terminology • Minimal commitment and support by the mayor, council, and manager in implement- ing the performance evaluation system. Unique Factors The evaluation of a local government man- ager differs in many ways from that of a cor- porate executive or manager in the private sector. Some unique features of the local gov- ernment manager evaluation include: 1. Role of Media. In most states, local man- ager evaluations are conducted as open meetings. Many newspapers want a "re- port card" on the manager's performance and focus only on the negative aspects, not on major accomplishments. 2. 'Everything is Personal. "The manager is a personification of the local government organization; negative comments about the community thus reflect personally on him or her. 3. Ability ojCouneil to Perform Group Evaluation. The dynamics of the local council affect its ability to perform as a group. If the council is experiencing se- vere personal conflicts, operating off hid- den agendas, or overreacting to citiun feedback, these factors are likely to nega- tively affect the evaluation. 4. Council Leadership. Council's willingness and ability to focus key issues, develop processes for addressing those issues, and build consensus among members of the council are key to meaningful manager evaluation. 5. Credibility. The performance evaluation of the local manager will be widely shared and will affect the personal credibility of the manager in managing the local organi- zation, in interacting with the community, and in assisting in policy leadership with the mayor and council. 6. Family and Personal Impact. As the man- ager's performance evaluation is shared within the community, an impact will be made on spouse and children. 7. Timing. Depending upon the election and budget cycles, evaluations may best be done at the council's mid-term, or at the "legacy phase," after the election and prior to the nett council election. In spite of these observations, the need for more formal evaluations of local managers is indicated. The degree of formality of this pro- cess depends on the council's needs or de- sires. Decisioo-making The decision-making part of the performance evaluation process is often the most difficult to execute. An overriding question the local manager needs to address is: How formal do I want the performance evaluation process to be? This section attempts to increase under- standing of this dilemma. The following ques- tions are provided to stimulate thoughts about the development of positive approaches to the evaluation process. Managers who are facing a performance evaluation in the future are encouraged to respond to the following questionnaire (figure 1) to gain insights into their own evaluation process. The responses to these questions will influ- ence and help determine the type of perfor- mance evaluation process that will take place. Answering the following questions may also be helpful: 1. Why do you want to be evaluated? 4 PM February 1988 2. What do you want the results of the eval- uation to be? This section is aimed at helping the man- ager focus his or her own perspective on the evaluation process. Learning Points and Guidelines I,earniag Point >I! 1: Local Government Manager Role Manager Role: A Common Frame of Ref- erence. An expanded sense of partnership ex- ists today among the mayor/council, man- ager/staff, and the community. Recognition is growing that this interdependence is impor- tant to effectively translate the intentions of the mayor and council into action by employ- ees and volunteers. An effective community is one in which the governance, management, and service delivery processes are linked, and the mayor and council's goals as policy lead- ers are translated into actions by employees. The govermtnce process is aimed at provid- ing overall direction for locality. The key players are the policy leaders-primarily the mayor and the council. They share their responsibilities with various boards, commis- sions, and key managers. The primary funo- lions of the governance process are: • Setting a tone that guides management and service delivery • Focusing the future vision of the commu- Wiry-long-term horizon • Translating this vision into specific target issues that need to be addressed during the life cycle • Determining policy direction and guidelines for the community In addition, policy leaders have the respon- sibility of sensing community values and ob- taining feedback on local government perfor- mance. Acomparison is made between the desired outcomes and the actions of the local government. The mana<gemeat process focuses on design- ing mechanisms for translating the vision and target issues into action. The key players are the local manager in conjunction with other managers and supervisors within the govern- ment organization. The primary functions of the managers are: • To develop an organizational philosophy that reflects values and beliefs on how the local government should be managed and operated on a daily basis • To develop specific programs for achieving consistency between values and actions • To anticipate issues • To resolve problems hampering manage- ment and service delivery • To build the capacity of the organization In addition, the manager has the respon- sibility to interpret the directives of the policy leaders and translate them into guidelines for employees. Figure 1-Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Questions to Ask Oneself About . Council Yes Maybe No 1. From my perspective, does the council have the ability to provide a meaning- ful evaluation? 2. is the council committed to coalplet- ing the evaluation process? 3. Does the council have the capacity to provide complete feedback to me? 4. Does the council have the ability to handle conflict in a positive, nonper- sonal manner? 5. Does the council have a team relation- ship rather than an adversarial rela- tionship with me as their manager? Questions to Ask Oneself as Local Goreroment Manager Yes Maybe No 1. Do I really want to be evaluated? 2. Do I really want direct feedback from the council? 3. Am I going to be nondefensive in lis- tening, and understanding council comments? 4. Do the potential positive impacts out- weigh the negatives for me, my family, and the local government? S. Am I approaching the evaluation as a learning and planning process? Questions About ttie E.abadoa Process Yes Maybe No 1. Do I want my performance evaluation linked to compensation? 2. Is there a good time to do the perfor- mance evaluation and, if so, when? 3. Is council willing to spend the amount of time necessary to complete the eval- uation? 4. Has the council established organiza- tional goals that can be linked to my performance evaluation? 5. is there a good place to do the perfor- mance evaluation outside of the formal council mating? (Setting: ) Copyrisht a 1987 Sumek Associates, lnc. All righu reserved. PM February 1988 ~X~i ~3i r ~ mAn e,,~ective community is one in which the governance, management, and service delivery processes are linked. m The serrice delivery process focuses on the actual delivery of services to citiuns. The pri- mary players are local government employees and contractors. Most systems do not distin- guish between the two but focus rather on the action. Service process employees have the following functions: • To provide services to citizens that reflect the city's values • To provide feedback to managers about the community • To monitor performance in service delivery The actions taken by individuals providing services are the most visible. These service delivery actions are compared by citiuns with their actual desires. In the 1980s a shift appear to be occurring in the relationship between the three key pro- cesses. Individuals and communities are rec- ognizing the partnership between policy lead- ers, managers, and employees/contractors; they are becoming increasingly aware of the interdependence among the processes of gov- entance, management, and service delivery. Each local government strikes its own bal- ance in the relationships of these processes. Divtrse Roles ojthe Manager DOER: Doing the Task Yourself • Responding to complaints • Handling problems • Providing information and analysis • Developing budget • Preparing agenda SUPERVISOR: Gettin the Task Done rough hers • Hiring, firing, and promoting staff' • Monitoring performance and making ad- justments • Providing direction • Interpreting council goals and directives • Counseling stall' on problems MANAGER: Develo in Processes and t e rganization • Anticipating issues • Developing processes for handling issues • Developing management policies, proce- dures, and systems • Building the management team • Building the capacity of employees through training LEADER: Setdn Direction and Creatin cam pint • Empowering others to act • Being visible in the community • Representing the community • Professional development • Setting the tone for the organisation • Creating a "local team spirit" The diagram below illustrates this concept. To help gain perspective on what portion of your time is spent in each of the following roles, fill in the blanks indicated by the per- centage signs: Doer ~ Supervisor % Manager % Leader Immediate Long-Term Hands On Abstract Power Over Task Power Over Others 096 Percentage of Time 100 A clear understanding of the manager's role in the local government organisation is vitally important. This should include deci- sion-making parameters and boundaries, as well as clearly outlined expectations and stan- dards to guide daily performance within the organization. The key to successfully evaluat- ing performance is defining (prior to the eval- uation) what criteria you will use to evaluate the individual. L.earoing Poi t~2: Define the Evaluation Elements of Task Performance The development of the local government manager evaluation process requires prepara- tory work by the mayor and the council in conjunction with the manager. The past year's performance can be evaluated from two perspectives: Performance 06jectives: What is to be accomplished Performance Standards: How it is to be accomplished Ikfining specific expectations for each of these two elements of performance should be done ideally at the time the manager is hired, or at the beginning of the evaluation period; however, this is often not the case. At a mini- mum, performance objectives and perfor- mance standards should be clearly defined before any evaluative statements or com- ments are made. PM February 1988 - ~XNiBir ~ Performance Objectives. Performance ob- jectives link the goals of council with the per- sonal goals of the manager. Prior to the time period for which the manager will be evalu- ated, specific performance objectives should be developed. Evaluating the performance ob- jectives involves determining what results have been produced (figure 2). Performance Standards. Performance stan- dards make up the criteria for evaluating daily activities and behavior. This assessment requires explicit definition of the manager's role, which in turn results in guidelines for appraising the behavioral element of perfor- mance. Role Boundaries • Negotiated boundaries within which the manager can perform • Definition of specific role expectations and decision space Performance Standards The performance standards are the basic cri- teria for appraising an individual's perfor- mance, and they will vary from community to community. Some sample performance stan- dards are: Organizes community programs to make most efI octive use of available resources; develops appropriate linkages with citizen and advocacy groups; keeps council well informed of program progress; monitors results and makes changes necessary to ettsure effective outcome. Projects an active and positive image of the community in all public presentations; works well with representatives of the me- dia to provide factual and informative sto- Ties about community programs; develops and maintains effective relationships with community groups such as the Jaycees, the Rotary, the Chamber of Commerce, the League of Women Voters, and the NAACP to promote community projects. 2. Basic question: How did the manager accom- plish the performance objectives (complete work tasks)? These become the major standards by which the past year's evaluation can be judged. Many localities already have devel- oped agreat deal of the process; however, it is important to capture key information in a formal manner and use it constructively in the evaluation process. Learning Point #3: Adjust the Form to the Ind'nidud Local Council It is important to design the form to fit the Figure 2 Council Goals ~ ~ Personal Goals • Broad policy issues to be • Self~evelopment goals addressed during the year • Professional goals • Specific projects to be • Areas needing pcrsonal completed growth and development • Problem and complaint response Performance Objectives Mayor and council link the local government's goals, objectives, and work programs with the manager's personal development. The perfor- mance objectives should include a list of specific work tasks (targets) to be accomplished during the year, priorities on work tasks estab- lished, and common expectations about what completion or accom- plishment means. These objectives link organiTational needs to profes- sional goals. Basic question: What does the local manager need to accomplish during the nett year? assessment needs of each local organization. The simplest evaluation form provides the fol- lowing information: I. Reviewing the past year A. What has the manager accomplished during the past year? B. What are the manager's nonacc~mplishments or learning opportunities? II. Goals for the next year A. What goals do you want to see the manager accomplish for the local community B. What goals do you want to see the manager accomplish as an individual? This form allows for numerical rating, but it also requires ghat individuals write down spe- cific thoughts and observations in narrative format. On the other hand, a more sophisticated performance evaluation form may include three parts: I. Past year's performance A. Performance objectives: Assessment • What has the manager accom- plished during the past year? • What are the manager's nonacxomplishments or learning opportunities? PM February 1988 ~X I~-f l B i T ~ m De finin B. Performance standards: Assessment , g S ecific of how the manager performed the p job expectations for The performance standards, again, ...performance need to be developed by the individ- should be done ual local government. The perfor- mance appraisal process is the appli- ideally at the cation of performance standards to time the Past performance. In appraising a manager, the basic levels of perfor- manager is mane are: hired. m • Below expectations is that level of performance consistently falling below the requirements of the job and indicating the need for im- provement. It does not mean that every aspect of the employee's per- formance is below adequate stan- dards but that, in general, the em- ployee does not meet minimum expectations and requirements. Meets expectations is that level of performance considered adequate to meet the requirements of the job. Some day-today variation is to be expected and may range, on occasion, from poor to very good. For the most part, however, "meets expectations" represents satisfac- tory performance neither consis- tently below nor superior to what is necessary to do the job. Exceeds expectations is reserved for the employee who consistently surpasses standards of adequate performance. Individuals who con- sistently do a good job should be rated "meets expectations," not "exceeds expectations: ' An occa- sional instance of superior perfor- mance is not sufficient justification for an "exceeds expectations" rat- ing. "Exceeds expectations" perfor- Cresap, McCormick and Paget CONSULTANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNME{VT LEADERS SINCE 1946 COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT STUDIES OF CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENTS, PLUS ANALYSIS OF: • Police And Fire • Compensation And Classification • Public Works • Economic And Tourism Development • Human Services • Information Systems • School Districts • Strategic Positioning 2101 L Street, N.W. 200 West Madison Street 595 Market Street Suite 400 Suite 3440 Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20037 Chicago, IL 60606 San Francisco, CA 94105 (202)463-2800 (312)263-7125 (415)781-8421 Plus offices in five other cities in the United States and Canada. 3475 Lenox Road Suite 500 Atlanta. GA 30326 (404)261-0859 PM February 1988 Ex i8ir ~ manse requires that the employee has consistently exceeded the su- pervisor's expectations for ade- quate or "meets expectations" performance. II. Definition of goals A. What goals do you want to see the manager accomplish for the local community? B. What goals do you want to see the manager accomplish as an individ- ual? III. Development of specific action plans- Commitment by the manager This process involves the identification of .specific steps to be taken that satisfy developmental needs and clarify roles, is- sues, and concerns. Steps should be spe- cific to ensure that the manager and the council have the same understanding. The choice of a simple or a sophisticated form depends on the needs of the organiza- tion. Two variations have been presented- one that is almost totally narrative and one that allows only for numerical ratings. This author believes that a form with only numeri- cal ratings results in council's focusing on numbers rather than on substantive com- ments. On the other hand, if the manager's compensation is linked to his or her perfor- mance evaluation, narrative statements are more subjective and are not easily quantified. Point t~4: Adjugt the Process to the The process needs to be adjusted to fit the specific idiosyncrasies of the situation; how- ever, some basic steps are recommended to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. Step One: Review ojPrevious Year • Establish goals and targets • Define role boundaries and decision space • Outline the evaluation process Step Tlvo: Record Observations Encourage councilmembers to have a file for comments and observations regarding the manager's performance, so that at the end of the year they have positive and negative feed- back for the entire year, instead of just for the past month. Step Tbree: Process Agreenunt The mayor and council (in conjunction with the manager) develop a process and agree on the steps for the evaluation. Step Four.• Honetwork The councilmembers complete their eval- uations and return them to the mayor, who compiles the results and focuses key issues for discussion. The mayor should also contact individual councilmembers at this time to clarify the meaning of specific comments. This is also the time to "test" the issues in a preliminary evaluation session. Step Five: Evaluation Session During this phase of the process, the mayor and council meet with the manager to discuss: • Performance appraisal • Performance objectives • Performance plans More than one session may be necessary to adequately address all the issues. Both the mayor/council team and the local manager may enter the session with difi'erent perceptions of what took place during the evaluation period. Since that is the case, even though they have had similar experiences, each will put his or her interpretation into the events. Mayor/ council's Manager's image image Step Six: Manager Response The local manager prepares "My Action Plan" (MAP) for the nets year. This plan re- sponds to the council's comments and sug- gested goals for the nett year. It also pro- vides a written document for future evaluation. The performancx evaluation is an opportu- nity for the mayor, council, and local man- ager to focus on and discuss various aspects of work performance. The evaluation process helps to open the eyes of the manager and the council and lays a foundation for the fu- tune. It should be kept as simple as possible while still meeting the needs of the local gov- ernment organization. PM PM February 1988 EX~iBiT' .D LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR EVALUATION he stxne is an all too familiar one: a T bright and energetic manager is fired with little notice from the council. Both sides are embarrassed, and they should be. It didn't have to happen. If both the man- ager and the eouncilmembers had followed a common procedure, the firing might have been avoided. If the manager and councilmembers had met periodically to dis- cuss the manager's performance, the councilmembers' expectations, and how each side defines success, they might have found an alternative to termination. When most people interview for a job they are careful to find out the key requirements of the position, the benefits and compensa- tion, and relevant information about stag re- lations. Local government managers are sun to ask about the political climate, the special needs of the area, and its financial condition. Interviewers are seldom asked to provide crit- ical information that aS'ects a person's suc- txss on the job, however, and the answers may not be ascertained until the manager learns that he or she has been fired. Most people unfortunately never ask: • What criteria will be used to evaluate my success? • How will these criteria be selected? • How often will the criteria be updated? • What measura will be used to determine success? • How often will I be evaluated? • Who will conduct the evaluation, and what proxss will be used? Without this information, managers are vulnerable to the whims of individuals who may use unfair or unethical means to evalu- ate performance. In addition, without answers to these vital questions, managers often work in a vacuum where they don't know some- thing is amiss until it is too late to take cor- rective action. Linda Hopper is director of ICMA's Traiaiag lrotitutc. Waabiagtoc. D.C. linda Hopper Why does this happen? Why do managers and councilmembers allow this situation to exist? First, some managers and councils sim- ply aren't in the habit of taking time out to review performance. If things are going well, we normally just assume that everyone under- stands the current situation. After all, why rock the boat? Second, if things aren't going well, we often deal with c~n8ict by ignoring it and hoping it will resolve itself. When it doesn't, we confront, sometimes in anger and frustration. Third, some people are embar- rassed and threatened by the process of eval- uation, may view it as a critical process, and tend to shy away from giving news that might not be well received. Mac D. Manning reported the status of the governing body's evaluation of the city man- ager in his national survey and research project for the~Hugo Wall Cenur for Urban Studies at Wichita State University.' Man- ning's research indicates the following: • 65.5 percetnt of the rapondents conduct an annual formal evaluation. • 12.7 percent of the rapondents who con- duct evaluations are reviewed every six months. • 95.2 percent of the rapondents indicated that the governing body conducts the eval- uation. • 65.5 percent of the rapondents complete a specifically designed form to evaluate the manager, and 76.1 percent of those use the form during the review proxss. • 83 percetnt of the rapondents indicated that the evaluation process was initiated by the manager (16.4 percetnt indicated that the governing body initiated). • 51.4 percent of the respondents had em- ployment contracts, and only 33.6 percent required an annual evaluation. ~ The diseanion is based upon as urtpttblished applied ro- search project conducted by Mac D. Manning. Jr.. for the Hugo Wall Cents for Urban Studies at Wichita Sute Unr versity. May 1986, Dr. Sam J. Yeager, taeuhy advisor. A to- tal of 386 tdties ar 48.23 peroatl of the nrrtpk responded to Mr. Marorog's survey. Mr. Masamtg is the city administrator for Valley Cerra, Kansas. 10 PNFs~ February 1988 ~XNiBi r ~ • 56.3 percent reported that the city's goal- setting mechanism was a part of the eval- uation process of the manager. The respondents to Manning's survey re- ported that the following performance areas were used in their evaluations: Percentage of Evaluations • Supervision 72.2 • Personnel 60.0 • Department performance 52.2 • Leadership 76.3 • Fiscal management 77.1 • Council relations 75.9 • Council communication 71.0 • Execution of policy 71.4 • Program development 58.0 • Decision making 66.1 • Goal achievement 64.5 • Citizen relations 72.2 • Media relations 56.7 • Intergovernmental relations 57.6 Manning also found that a manager is far more likely to be evaluated if the employ- ment contract specifically required a formal review Of those managers who have acon- tract but no evaluation clause, only SO per- cent are evaluated; only 47.4 percxnt of man- agers without contracts recxive an annual review Clearly, the presence of a contractual agreement makes it far more likely that the manager will be given structured feedback by the council. Manning recommends that the manager and the governing body develop the following items before initiating a formal evaluation process: 1. An accurate job description for the man- ager 2. An organiTational mission statement for the governing body 3. Agoal-setting process that is integrated with the mission statement and the operat- ing budget 4. A work plan that guides the implementa- tion of the goals and provides a way to measure acooarplishments 5. A method to submit an annual report to the governing body so that progress to- ward goals is documented The situation obviously has improved over the years, but a large percentage of managers are not receiving the kind of structured feed- back they Hoed to develop the best working relationship with their council. We need a new way to look at the topic of performance evaluation so that councilmembers and man- agers can exercise their responsibility to each other and the public. It is, after all, the pub- lic that suffers when a manager is termi- nated. The city, county, or municipality is most directly affected when a manager is fired. Evaluation is not a frill. Performance evaluation is what professionals do to ensure that they are performing professionally. The Center for Creative Leadership lists 10 reasons why executives fai1:2 1. Specific performance problems with busi- ness 2. Insensitivity to others: an abrasive, intimidating, bullying style 3. Cold, aloof, arrogant 4. Betrayal of trust 5. Overmanaging-failing to delegate or build a team 6. Overly ambitious-thinking of the next job, playing politics 7. Failing to stab' effectively 8. Unable to think strategically 9. Unable to adapt to a boss with a differ- ent style 10. Overdependent on an advocate or mentor Note that the number one reason for fail- ure is specific performance problems; of the 101isted, 3 Saws relate to communication and 3 deal with management or delegation failures. All of these "failures" can be avoided if people define expectations, estab- lish realistic performance measures, and regu- larly discuss performancx in an atmosphere of trust. m If things are going well, we normally just assume that everyone understands the current SltuatlOn. m What can managers and eouncilmembers do to establish and foster a performance eval- uation system if one is not in placx? Here are some suggestions. • Work out performance indicators together. Define what it takes to be successful in the job. Determine how success can be and should be measured. • Make sure that performance indicators are realistic and within the control of the man- ager. Evaluate only those things that are relevant to the job and avoid evaluating nebulous and hard-to-measure factors. = McCall. Marpn W and Miebael M. t.omhardo. od rAe 7-•ek: Why and saw S•ceatjMl Bsserrtves Ger O~eralled. Tec6nial Report Number 21. January 1983, Center fa Cro- atiw I.eadaabip. Greeaeboro, North Cardi•a, paae 6. PM{ February 1988 11 ~X N~I BiT ~ • Establish at least two times a year when the council provides structured feedback to the manager with opportunity for the man- ager to respond. • Make a commitment to open and honest communication so that conflict can be dealt with as it occurs. Resist the natural "flight" impulse and deal with disagree- ments as they occur. • Never "stockpile" grievances and dump them all at once. Discuss issues as they arise. • Separate the person from the problem. Know what is caused by internal and exter- nal factors. • Define timeframes for corrective action to ensure that the process is fair and just. • Continue to meet informally to discuss per- formance and expectations. Continuous feedback improves communication and helps to avoid misunderstandings. mlf things aren't going well, we often deal with conflict by ignoring it and hoping it will resolve itself. m ' The manager has the responsibility to dog ument his or her own performance and to provide the council with periodic updates. Al- though some people believe it is wrong to pro- mote themselves, it is impossible for councilmembers to know what you have done and how well you have done it if you do not tell them. Establishing a formal annual review re- quires that the manager and councilmembers fast agree on its importance. Next, the man- ager and council must agree on the criteria that will be evaluated, how the criteria will be measured, and who will conduct the eval- uation. Keep in mind that the qualitative as- pects of the review, not the quantitative ele- ments, are the most important. Managers should be careful not to tie themselves to overly empirical systems that equate bean- counting to effective management of complex systems. The evaluation process, ideally, is a way to establish more effective and open communication. A good system thus is recip- rocal, with all involved discussing how they help or hinder each other's performance. If the evaluation process makes you feel manip- ulated or controlled, it's time to revisit what you're doing. At the end of the review, you should feel that you know more about what you're doing right as well as those areas that you need to improve. You should feel a greater sense of understanding of your evalu- ators' expectations and goals. And you should have a clear picture of your goals and prior- ities for the next rating period. Professional development requires regular and rystematic feedback. Managers who don't receive a regular review are missing an opportunity to learn more about themselves and their councilmembers' expectations. F- nally, an annual review coupled with a good employment contract form the basis of a package that enhances the professionalism of our field. Managers deserve the same execu- tive treatment other CEOs and CAOs experi- encx. Performancx evaluation is only one way to improve the daily council-manager rela- donahip, but it is a mechanism that deserves attention from the almost 40 percxnt who are not exploring it as an option. PM ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a'~~~~s~~~~~~s~~~~~s~~~~, ~ ~ DON'T ~ ~ MAKE: A ' . ~~r STATE~M1pvMK .E 2»,•D6T000E ~ ~ MOV~ ~ ~ ~ ... * ~ ~ WITHOUT- SEND THIS iORM AND THE v ' ADOIIESS LABEL TO: ' ~~' ICMA 1 ' 1, . ~ ATTN: MUM•~ biMe•~ ~ Sao o sr..~ N.w ' * ~~~~~s~s~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s ~~~~s~s~~s~~ 12 PM ~ February 1988 Xhjt~'iT ,D COMMENTARY: Manager Evaluation Cumberland, Maryland The process of city manager performance by the elected officials of a municipality is one of the most vital yet least understood intern- lationships between appointed and elected of- ficials. The annual, formal review of manager/ CAO performance must be part of an ongo- ing dialogue between employer and em- ployee, tied to compensation, be conducted in strict cmnfidence, and follow some guidelines as to expected goals and objectives. In the case of my previous managerial ex- perience in Connecticut, the board of select- men annually sat down among themselves and, following a written outline, rated my previous 12 months' perforarancx and devel- oped anew list of goals and objectives. The only problem that arose was the confusion and lack of understanding of what merit- based pay and performance evaluations repro- seated for the manager's position vis-it-vis the rank-and-file union employees. To their credit, the elected officials then met face to face with me to discuss the evaluation and their rationale and provided a written sum- mary of their comments and recommenda- tions for future evaluations and individual performance. In my new position, my employment con- tract includes a stipulation that an annual performance review of the CAO be con- ducted by the mayor and city corrrrcil. Again, it is understood that I will provide some guidelines and a format for the elected offi- cials to utilize, and the results of said evalua- tion are tied to merit pay and the continua- tion of my employment agreement with the city. I don't believe there is any one ideal eval- uation process or set of guidelines. Those things should be discussed and agreed to jointly by the CAO and elected officials as to frequency of evaluation (at least every six months or annually), timing during the fiscal YC81'+ confidentiality, and prey fat appli- cation throughout the management hierarchy of the municipality. Both aides have to bo- lieve in the concept of performance evalua- tion, invest the time necessary to do it "right," and be committed enough that both negative and positive comments and feedback (the manager should be able to critique the council as an operating unit) will not hurt the eliectiveness nor the routineness of the evaluations. PM -Jay A. Gsell City Administrator Cumberland, Maryland Saratoga, California Two years ago I~ changed jobs. In Rolling Hills Estates, I had had a formal evaluation by the council for 12 years and found it to be a positive, helpful experiencx for the mast part. Naturally I was interested in continuing with such an evaluation in my new city, Sara- toga. What I tried to do and what has hap- pened in the past two years has been interat- mg. In addition to my personal experience, the city managers of Santa Clara County, includ- ing County Executive Sally Reed, spent a half~iay session discussing the topic of eval- uating the manager several months ago. Our conclusions were recorded by our group's pn;sident, Arne Croce, city manager of Los Altos. My personal experiencx revolved around two issues-the appropriateness of the eval- uation document being used and the partici- pation level of the manager during the actual evaluation session. I brought with me the form used in Rolling Hills Estates and of- fered it for use for my first annual evaluation in 1986. Council used it but didn't think it was so hot, while my previous council thought it was just fine, This year I rede- signed the foam, stealing ideas from other cit- ies and from the discussions among our man- aEe'srs group. While the oouncilmembers like this one better, they still have problems relat- ing to some of the categories. They unfortu- PM February 1988 13 ~X~}i BiT ~ nately haven't ofi'ered to come up with some- thing better, even though that would be preferred. What they want to focus on are goals for accomplishment and how well I did accomplishing those. Process and public rela- tions are just as important to almost all coun- cil people I have worked for, however. To overemphasize task orientation in evaluation is not good, and probably unworkable. The 1986 evaluation session was done mostly without my participation. I was called in at the end, my performance was summa- rized, and a week or so later I got a letter from the mayor summarizing my evaluation. This year I pushed very hard to participate during the entire process, hearing the de- tailed comments of each member of the coun- cil rather than a summary by the mayor. Councilmembers reluctantly agreed to this approach but wen worried how it would work, since not all the council saw eye to eye on the things we are doing or the way we are doing them. Conversely, my only bad evalua- tion experience had been during a two-year period in Rolling Hills Estates when the mayor had insisted on shutting me out of the process. Not surprisingly, oncx the eouncilmembers got into their individual evaluations, which were shared with me and the others on the council, they felt very comfortable with the process. Afterward they agreed it was much better than what they had done in 1986. They felt all of us had a clear understanding of what my performance goals were going to be for the next year and how I planned to mat their expectations. PM -Harry R Peacock City Manager Saratoga, California Massachusetts Times change. And the way managers are evaluated also needs to change. This creates an important new responsibility for councils as well as managers themselves. By analogy, try to think of a board of di- rectors in the private sector evaluating a CEO. Without a doubt, the private-sector CEO would gain praise or blame for the firm's eS'ectiveness in managing technology in manufacturing, banking, or corporate R&D functions. ICMA members now face similar chal- lenges and respomibilities. Managers and councils need to look at how their communi- ties are dealing with various kinds of technol- ogies. These include (among other:): • Computer-based systems • Telecommunications • Public works technologies • Firefighting and law enforcement technol- ogies New technologies continue to emerge rap- idly. Councils should expect their managers to stay on top of these new technologies on a continuous basis. The management of technology needs to tie into other elements of local government administration. For example: • Do you as manager encourage departments to take the initiative in searching out tech- nologies to improve their own services? How does this get incorporated into the evaluation of departmental personnel? • Do you as manager solicit and evaluate rec- ommendations for implementing new tech- nologies? And are these incorporated spe- cifically into the government's long-term capital budget? • Do you have a eommunitywide process for coordinating investment in technology in order to maximize its benefit to all? • How do you manage the implementation of technology? • Do you have an ongoing pmceas for eval- uating the implementation of technology? • Do you keep currem with contemporary technologies related to urban management? The management of technology can be a vexing issue for local governments, large or small. Nevertheless, technology is a fact of life today whose impact on management and services in local government will continue to grow The process of evaluation in which councils and managers share now needs to in- corporate the increasingly important role of technology. PM Sheldon S. Cohen Associate Director Massachusetts Municipal Association Boston, Massachusetts Coming Next Month: The Secret is Out: Public Service Is Fun 14 PM February 1988 ~XNiBir E. . ;; TO : Mary Allen { ~; FROM: Paul M. Mahoney ~~~ DATE: May 31, 1991 SUBJECT: June 8, 1991, B. of S. Planning Session Here are several suggested topics for the proposed agenda for the June 8, 1991 Board of Supervisors long range planning session. 1. Dixie Caverns. EPA should conclude its RI/FS by the Spring of 1992 (its final report is scheduled to be completed 11/91, but this schedule has slipped). The Board should consider planning for the financial, legal, economic and practical implications of this topic. 2. Stormwater Utility. The 1991 General Assembly adopted legislation authorizing local governments to adopt a stormwater control program by establishing a utility or enacting a system of service charges. Through these service charges localities may recover the costs associated with constructing, operating and maintaining stormwater control facilities. Service charges are to be assessed to all property owners based on their contributions to stormwater runoff. The Board may want to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of service fees and charges as a general policy, and with reference to this program in particular. 3. C.I.P. The Board may want to discuss the use and implementation of the C.I.P. as a long range planning document for the Board and staff. This process provides a method for identifying and ranking the relative priority of major capital projects over the long term, linking planning, zoning (conditional zoning proffers), and budgeting (both annual budget and bonded projects) with Board, staff and School Board. These projects, in turn, constitute an outline of the County's "future goals and objectives." To be crude, it is "putting your money where your mouth is." The C. I . P. is a critical component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan should be the foundation of any long range planning session. These elements must be consistent. ~XNiBiT F These topics for discussion at today's meeting were submitted orally: Harry C. Nickens -- Explore Project revenue Bob L. Johnson -- VDOT Revenue Sharing Elmer C. Hodge -- revenue projections -- debt retirement -- additional funding requests -- impact of requests on staff workload -- upcoming elections "Great leaders ...inspire their followers to high levels of achievement by showing them how their work contributes to worthwhile ends. It is an emotional appeal to some of the most fundamental needs -- the need to be important, to make a difference, to feel useful, to be part of a successful and worthwhile enterprise." Warren Bennis and Bert Nanus, Leaders (NY: Harper & Row,1985) II-5 -~ O~ ROANp~~ ~.~ . Z Z v ,, a 1$ 150 ~ 88 VEAPS SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~v~tn~~ of ~nttnnke M E D I A R E L E A S E Contact: Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board 772-2003 ALL~AMERICA CITY '~II~' 1979 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEVEN A. MCGRAW. CHAIRMAN CATAWElA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS, VICE-CHAIRMAN VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT LEE B. EDDY WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will meet on Saturday, June 8, 1991 at the Hollins Branch Library on Peters Creek Road for a Stratetic Planning Session. The meeting will begin at 7:30 a.m. and will adjourn prior to dinner. If necessary, the meeting will continue on Sunday, June 9. #### P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703> 772-2004 t ~ ~} c~ - ,~,~1 e tee``-- roJ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ s O ~~~ ~o-~-~ . ~- _. ),•:~ ~;~=~ 9 X ,r, ~~ ~ ~t ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STRATEGIC PLANNIlVG SESSION SATURDAY, JUNE S, 1991 - 730 A.M. HOLLINS BRANCH LIBRARY '~.~ ; A. COMMUNICATIONS %' 1. Impact of requests on staff workload 2. Upcoming elections, political requests and recognitions: Involvement of staff to provide information ~ 3. Customer Service Survey B. REVENUE PROJECTIONS =' ~~ S C. Debt Retirement D. ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS o CIP ($???) o Convention and Tourism ($5,000) o Employee Salaries (Schools 1% _ $550,000 County 1% _ $165,000) o Explore Project ($???) o Hotel Roanoke ($2 million) o Literary Loans ($???) j~ o. Road to Blacksburg ($25,000 per year) ~` o VDOT Revenue Sharing ($435,000) ~~ E. COUNTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ,:r 1. Strategic Plan _ ~,~ f~'~ ,u t, r~ ~{ ._._~ , ~-,K ~- ~ ~=~ -' ~~> . /~ ..,.. ~ ~;f ~.. .: ,. ~,-s-Z~- ~f 'Zap' - i! ~ `~ ;~ ~-* ~ c c .~. ~ .-~_. r.f' ter, x ~"-~ 2. "Building An Image". V - ~'%~=~~.. p of `; .~ -'~ ~` .~ -~/ ~ ~% > ., y ;~ v,... 3. Regional Partner - ~'_s.>~ .-~.~~,>, .,~>v,.,w~~,.,L, ~.7 _~ .~ ,f1-., ~ , n z 4. -~R~side$t~ ommercia n us ~; 5 _, __. r.- >,,, ...--._._ _._ __ __ _ -. ,,, ~ k-r. ~. 6. Economic Development -- ! < »~ 9~ ` `~ `~' y~~-" `' `~ F. EXECUTIVE SESSION G. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION H. ADJOUILNMIIVT ` i f 1 .j ~ .~ ;^ 1 ~~ ~~ ' '* ~. -~~ .~--- ._.,__ -,~.- ~_ ~_ . .~~'~~ ~ -~-9i ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION SATURDAY, JiJNE 8, 1991 - 7:30 A.M. HOLLINS BRANCH LIBRARY B. COUNTY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Strategic Plan 2. "Building An Image" 3. Regional Partner "~~. ~ v ~' a.:~ ~ ~ ~ 4. Residential versus Commercial/Industrial Balanc ~' ~"~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Impact of requests on staff workload 2. Upcoming elections, political requests and recognitions: Involvement of staff to provide information S ~v~Y 3. Customer Service ~- '~ ~ PROJECTIONS L~~ ~_ Debt Retirement ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS ~',~r 1. Hotel Roanoke ($2 million) 2. VDOT Revenue Sharing ($435,000 3. Road to Blacksburg ($25,000 per year) 4. Q 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ~~ vT ~ G , `>~ UPl 1. 2. Convention and Tourism ($5,000) CIP ($???) Explore Project ($???) Employee Salaries (Schools 1% _ $550,000 County 1% _ $165,000) Literacy Loans ($???) Report to-date on Privatization --~, SATE ON MAJO ROJECTS Landfill ater upply 3. Fir Station 4. onin~ rdinance 5. County Reo anization Bond Referend 7. Dixie Caverns 8. Stormwater M ~~e. O ~ ~ ti ~ ~~ y ~ O ~• O ,~~ ,~ a q 'c ~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~, y q ~b ~ y ~ O O b ,~' :b 'C-~ 'fit ~ 'b c~ ~c Off' ~ ~' y ~ •~ •'' •~' ~ ~ 4 cn ~ ~' ~S," O ,~ n ~ ~a ~ ~ ~' •~ b ^~ ~~ ~O ~ o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~, O O O~ tr h ,~ tr ~~~~~ n ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ti ~ ti ~ ~~ ~'Oo ~ ~ ~ ,~~ ha a~ s ~~ ti. O .v -Q, ~ ,~~~ ~Q ti w ~, ~~ r~ ~ ~ h~ Q ~ o h~ ~ i ~~' ~ a,. a, ~ ,Q ~ ~ ~ ~Q, ID ~r0 ~' O ~ ,~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ •v ~ ~ 40 ~ ~ ~ ~ •v 0 ~ ~ ti ,Q h~ ~ 3 ~ ~ A' ,Qi 0~ ti ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~~ ~ ~ a'7 ~ n'' ,. .ti.. ~ ~ m a rt~ w ~ rt K -~ ~ n 9. ~ Ort H O ~ f2, ~ ~ 4 D ~~ ~ I ~ fD ~, ~ b' ~ -7 fs, O ~ " 1 Ar F-~ ~ s ~rt ~ rt~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b w ~ ~ ~ o ~' ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~. N• rt o, a ~ ~ C ai --n ~ ~ ~ o ~ n°o, rt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c . ~ ~x ~, o ~~ ~ ~ t-+ to --~ ~ ~ s x~ rt~ ~ o ~~ ~ '~ ~ a ~ ,~ c ~~ rt 'v ~ N ~ (D . ~"'• ~ m ~' . a ~ ~' ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. x `~ ~ o R' M O K rt E o ~,_ rt~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ K ~ ~ o ~• rt ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ,'C ~, N ~ ~ 3o rn~~ . ~oc-~~ ~--gam-~ -~ _ ~e.Sd'vl/2. Lam. ~w~+V' ~ ~LvYt-~J // ~~~ ~ _ ~ / ~~ f ti ;~ ~~~ ~~. ._, .~`.;/.~ -:.r..' * ~, ~ ~'' ~~ ( inn 1 f t n `~"_.'``-'~` Y j ~ _ ) .. Y ~ :Y1 a~ ~ , / , F ~~f.~ ^rt~^, Y ~. % i' a q~r'i::~ , . 1. 4. F - r ~ r'. A+ ' l,~ f r f~ y (-• j _t~ .' r !r r ~ ,e {-/ i. l ! % ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ l ! ~ - l: i V ~ ~. g/ 1 i d f M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Lee Eddy Bob Johnson Steve McGraw Harry Nickens Dick Robers Mary Allen May 22, 1991 June 8 Planning Session Hollins College was not available for our June 8 Planning Session. Mr. Hodge suggested the Vinton War Memorial and that was not available either. We have reserved a room at the Hollins Library on Peters Creek Road for the session. Breakfast and lunch will be served (by ECH and me) and snacks will be available. The session will last from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. If necessary, another session will be planned for 1/2 day on Sunday, June 9. Listed below are topics that you suggested at the May 14 Board meeting. Please let me know of any other topics you wish to discuss so an agenda can be prepared. PROPOSED TOPICS 1. Water Supply 2. Landfill 3. Sewer 4. Hotel Roanoke 5. Future Goals and Objectives ~ ~? !~/ CC: Elmer C. Hodge Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke hotel task tougher Norfolk complex eaver to finance ByJOELTURNER _~. ~ warm . Roanoke faces a more difficult -. task in putting together financing . for the renovation of Hotel. - Roanoke and a eonfereacx canter than Norfolk did for asimilar pmj- ect, the city's economic develop-~ meat chief said Thursday. _ . Brian Wishneff is optimistic that financing can be found for tha $35 million hotel project, ..hut changes in the real estau and finaa: cial markets will make. it tougher for a New Orleans developer to ar- range a money package,' he said... Conditions have changed. sig nificantly since Norfolk and privau developers put together a SSS mil- lion financial package for the Mar- riott Waterside Hotel and Confer- ence Center, he said. Financial institutions that lent most of the money for such projects two years ago now are requiring developers to provide a substantial equity. After athree-hour closed. ses- sion by City Council to discuss-the hotel project, Wishneff said- the ..community is going to have to ben player" to help arrange a financing package. -._.... During the closed meeting,. Wishneff and City Manager Robert Herbert briefed council on the sta- tus ofthe hotel. They also discussed the city's stance in upoomingnego- tiations with Tech and- Classic Properties, the New Orleans devel- oper selected for the projecK. City and Tech officials remain. cautious, despite the selection of•a developer to secure financing sad architectural desi~as. Classic has committed S2 millton, and has~held tentative talks with insuranoc cs7m• panics and pension funds in e_ff_oces to .secure financing. -•--~~ City officials repeatedly " to the gulf dividing the•phlnnedS8 .~w PLEASE SEE NOTE~B - ~> «,~,~. ~y . - Hotel FROM PAGE 81 million conference center - to be funded by Tech and the city -and the S35 million hotel renovation. Officials will not rule out a Norfolk-style arrangement in which City Council would appropriate municipal money to the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Au- thority. The authority, in turn, would allow the hotel's operators to draw on the fund if necessary. . Council members and several cKy administrators went to Norfolk oirWednesday to tour the hotel and conference center under conatru~ lion. They also visited several Other residential and commercial proj- ects in their search for clues to the development of the Hotel Roanoke Proj~• They learned Norfolk provided $17.5 million in public money for its conference center and hotel - and millions toward other projects - without putting any of them to public vote. Roanoke usually submits bond issues to a referendum. Wishaeff said it's too early to say whether Roanoke will need a bond issue for the hotel project. In the next 60 to 90 days, Wish- neffsaid, Classic Properties will re- fine details of the hotel-conferencx center complex, including develop- ing precise cost estimates, deter- mmutg how much of the hotel's histoncal features can be saved and whether a franchise operator will be sought.