Memorandum 15-034 Strategic Doing for the Library

Memorandum ID: 
15-034
Memorandum Status: 
Information Only

Related Meetings

Details

Memorandum 15-034

TO:                       Mayor Wythe and City Council

THROUGH:       Marvin Yoder, City Manager

FROM:                 Ann Dixon, Library Director

DATE:                  January 19, 2015

SUBJECT:         Strategic  Doing

Strategic Doing is an interesting and potentially effective new mechanism for focusing limited resources to achieve best results. As Council members and City staff begin that process, I’d like to bring forward a few questions and comments.

 

How do we implement the process in such a way that it is “living” – i.e. responds to current needs in the community?

Strategic Doing priorities are based on projects and other goals listed in the Comprehensive Plan, which hasn’t been updated for several years. Examples from the Library include an emergency back-up generator, which is on the CIP list, and the western lot of Library land, which has become a matter of community concern, input, and initial planning for reasons of safety and trail use. Both these issues have arisen in the past one to two years. Neither is listed in the Comprehensive Plan or Strategic Doing. This doesn’t mean that action won’t proceed – it is proceeding, in both instances. Maybe the question is, what role (if any) does the Strategic Doing document play in projects that arise between revisions of the Comprehensive Plan?

 

Does Strategic Doing meaningfully address items on the Comprehensive Plan that are less project-specific and more community-oriented, such as items under Community Capacity?

Projects such as “Improve restrooms along the spit trail” and “Update the beach policy” are easier to quantify and rate objectively than Community Capacity goals such as “Continue to work with citizen groups and nonprofit organizations which play a large role in providing desired services in Homer” or “Support the efficient use of existing community facilities. Partner with organizations to keep city facilities operating beyond normal hours.” Are broader, less-defined goals more difficult to act upon? Should Community Capacity goals be more specific?

 

How can the Strategic Doing rubric be best utilized to be less subjective and more reflective of community priorities and needs?

In some cases, the rubric itself is problematic. For example, staffing needs are listed under the areas of Youth Services, Library, and Parks, Recreation & Culture. If the stated problem is that staffing in these areas is inadequate, how can the rubric category “Project has adequate existing or easily accessible staffing” be meaningfully answered? Ratings range from 5 (Youth Services) to 6 (Parks, Rec & Culture) to 3 (Library). What do those numbers mean? What are they based on?
The concept of “High Impact/Low Impact” carries a considerable degree of subjectivity. If it’s based on rating results by the number of residents impacted (City residents only – or area residents, too?), how do we explain “Increase staffing at Parks & Rec” rated as High Impact while “Increase staff” at the Library is rated as Low Impact? Considering the volume of visits to the Library in 2014 – 129,600, well over 10,000 per month on average – how could an increase in staffing not have a high impact on the community? If High Impact/Low Impact is more a measure of impact as perceived by the public, that is even more subjective, i.e. Council’s and staff’s perceptions of what the public perceives.

 

I appreciate the Mayor’s and Council’s initiative in moving the Strategic Planning process forward. While any process is bound to have strengths and weaknesses, Strategic Doing appears to be a useful tool to help the City focus on priorities -- particularly if we can address, or at least keep in mind, the issues of currency, relevancy, and subjectivity.