Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting Retreat <br /> Tuesday, February 17, 2015 <br /> Page 9 <br /> achieved the end goal. Mr. Rapp advised that in order to accomplish that objective,how- <br /> ever, it would require change on two fronts: movement away from operational excellence <br /> value proposition and control culture, since it's hard to do both. Mr. Rapp opined that as <br /> long as participants understood what was involved, it could work. As an example, Mr. <br /> Rapp recognized that an incident command situation was not collaborative, but other are- <br /> as were as long everyone understood the implication of making the shift. <br /> Councilmember Willmus arrived at this time, approximately 3:48 p.m. <br /> Before recessing for a break, Mr. Rapp advised that this accomplished the "big picture," <br /> and next was reviewing the environment and results of the SWOT exercise to identify <br /> strategic challenges, with participants broken into groups to identify 4-5 strategic priori- <br /> ties, then moving on to identify 2-3 key outcome indicators or priorities, and finally 3-5 <br /> strategic initiatives or priorities. <br /> Recess <br /> Mr. Rapp recessed the meeting at approximately 3:49 p.m., and reconvened at approxi- <br /> mately 4:03 p.m. <br /> 3. Where We Are—SWOT Analysis (including Presentation/Results/Discussion) <br /> Before breaking into groups for this short exercise, Mr. Rapp reviewed the three-step <br /> process to be used based on the SWOT handouts: (S=strengths, W=weaknesses, <br /> O=opportunities, and T=threats). Each group was given a category for the purpose of <br /> correlating and combining similar items into priority statements. Results reported by <br /> each group are listed as follows: <br /> STRENGTHS <br /> 1) Financial health—city and broader community <br /> 2) City staff <br /> 3) Caring and engaged citizens <br /> 4) City services provided <br /> 5) Location in Twin Cities <br /> Mr. Etten, in summarizing his group's report, noted that almost no one from staff brought <br /> up city financing as a strength, with that being the most striking difference in staff and <br /> City Councilmember responses. <br /> WEAKNESSES <br /> 1) Looking backwards instead of forward on dialogue held <br /> 2) Top-down public engagement process pushing information rather than listening first— <br /> development process <br /> 3) City Council deliberation process—personal attacks and indecision during the process <br /> 4) Concept between lean budgeting vs. willingness to cut or reduce programs in order to <br /> free resources for other programs <br /> 5) Changing demographics and workforce — Councilmembers and staff all brought this <br /> up in both areas <br />