The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1999-0506 Study Session PACKET CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Thursday, May 6, 1999 at 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers 1. Strategic Plan Debriefing and Discussion of Next Steps. 2. Discussion of Study Sessions and Council Meetings - Public Input Process. 3. Discussion of upcoming trip to Guanajuato in August/September. e�^' .fig, 4. Wastewater Treatment Plant loose ends. \of E. Main Street City of Ashland Ashland,' OR 1 Memo To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Mike Freeman,City Administrator " CC: Department Heads Date: 05/03/99 Re: Evaluation of Strategic Planning Process for 1998—1999 Attached to this memo is an evaluation form for the strategic planning process that lead to the development of goals and objectives that formed the basis of the recommended 1999—2000 Budget. As you recall, there were several steps in the strategic planning process the Council and staff undertook this year, including: 1. Conducting a citizen survey/soliciting input from Boards and Commissions and the public 2. Development of a community values statement 3. Development short and longer term goals 4. Implementation 5. Developing a reporting process 6. Refinement and updating The staff are currently working on developing a reporting process for the Council to keep you up-to- date on the implementation of the strategic plan. A remaining task for this year is to solicit input from the Council and staff on the process that was used during the strategic planning program. In my estimation, there were portions of the process that went well and others that did not, your feedback will be used to improve the process in the future in an attempt to make strategic planning a useful and valuable tool for the Council and staff. Please complete the attached survey and return it to Mike before you leave the study session today. This information will be summarized and brought back to Council for further discussion at an upcoming Study Session. • Page 1 1999 Strategic Planning Debriefing 5/6/99 Overall,did the 1999 strategic planning process meet your expectations? Yes No Do you feel that the time spent on strategic planning was well spent? Yes_ No Do you see value in proceeding further with the strategic planning program? Yes No Do you feel the consultant who worked with the City over the weekend workshop was effective? Yes_ No If yes,would you like to see him back to help out in the future? Yes No In hindsight,what part of the process would you have changed this year? t '4 What part of the process did you think went well? What recommendations do you have to make the process more effective this coming year? Parting Comments: 1999 Strategic Planning Process Strategic Planning Iterative Process Process ;Statement ts: urvey .. and . ssions orum Phase: Jangic Planning hop Product: - - Community Values atement Statement Product: Organizational Mission Vision State ment Statement Product: Short and Long Term CLon &Short Term Goals(drive Budget Goals Established - - - Process) Organizational Alignment& Implementation Implementation Through the Budget Process Annual Reporting Refinement& (Scorecard) Planning Process CITY OF ASHLAND l F As/t� Department of Public Works Administration/Director's Office MEMORANDUM OREGON. . DATE: May 5, 1999 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Paula C. Brown, Public Works Director/City Engineer /J flies RE: WWTP- LOOSE ENDS I. Facilities Plan Figures Attached are copies of three pages from the 1995 Facilities Plan. To adequately compare apples-to-apples costs, the comparison took into effect the capital costs only, and did not include the estimates for design as these were figured separately by Carollo. You will notice that the capital cost of advanced treatment year around discharge to the creek is $29.9 million. This was the only way to fully compare the options as we are proposing today. However, when the costs are compared to the `Total Present Worth"costs, that option was shown as $52.3 million as compared to the summer irrigation option of$36.9 million. Il Irrigation Rates, Application Volumes,Application Restrictions The spray irrigation heads are rated at 294 gallons per minute. The treatment plant produces 1.87 million gallons per day that must be used through the irrigation heads. Staff has estimated each sprinkler head to be on for 5 minutes at any one time and that 5 sprinklers would be operating at the same time. There are a total of 135 heads on the property. 294 gallons/minute/head x 5 minutes x 135 heads = 198,450 gallons used every 5 minutes assuming all heads were on If the sprinklers are rotated so that all 135 sprinklers have 5 minutes at a time, 10 times a day,we would use 1,984,500 gallons of water. This means that each of the sprinkler heads would be on for less than an hour(50 minutes) total (in 5 minute increments) each day. If only 5 of the total 135 sprinkler heads are on at any one time, there are 17 rotations. 17 rotations at 5 minutes per rotation means that the total sprinkler time would be 85 minutes to complete one full cycle. Ten cycles would be 850 minutes of total sprinkler time. There are 1440 minutes in a day - thereby leaving 590 minutes (or nearly 10 hours) each day for 1 wind or other constraints. Please know that the 5 minutes per sprinkler is a worst case scenario. There may be times in which the sprinklers could be on for a longer period. We are constrained by the fact that we cannot have run-off,and that the plant/crop type must use the water sprinkled. There are sensors in the ground to ensure that there is no run-off and that there is no deep penetration of the water. We will not spray when the wind velocities would take the water off of the site. The weather station on the site will monitor the wind velocity and wind direction to ensure that we will not over-spray. Buffers around the irrigation area(100-1000 feet-minimal requirement by DEQ is 70 feet for level II reclaimed water) are there to protect for over-spray as well. III. Water Rights on Ashland Creek Attached are two documents pertaining to the City's water right on Ashland Creek. IV Cost Clarifications I'm not sure where the Sneak Preview got the latest costs estimates, but to reiterate, the following explains the costs to date: Current Capital Estimates: Construction of On-Site Process Improvements (Slayden) $ 12,400,000 On-Site Changes (est) (Slayden) 620,000 Ashland Creek Pump Station (not bid) 1,000,000 Spray Irrigation and Biosolids Off-Site (not bid) 9,000,000 Design(Carollo - both sites) 2,200,000 Const Management and Inspection(Carollo - both sites) 1,800,000 TOTAL $ 27,020,000 Wetlands (demonstration project) 480,000 Land Purchase (Reuse site) 900,000 WWTP Upgrade TOTAL $ 28,400,000 O&M (20 years) plus Capital $ 31,596,000 2 R 9-19 Table 9-6. Cost Comparison ' Alternative ' Wastewater Advanced Treatment in Summer Irrigation Wastewater ' Cost item, $1,000 Medford of City Property Treatment Capital cost 21,782 27,086 37,403 Annual cost 783 904 1,231 Present worth of annual cost' 10,641 12,286 16,729 Salvage value (3,944) (5,436) (4,069) Present worth of Salvage • Value4b (1,800) (2,481) (1,857) • Total present worth' 30,623 36,891 52,275 ° Based on discount rate of 4 percent and a20-year study period. b Salvage value based on straight line depreciation over study period. Present Worth Summary From the present worth values in Table 9-6, Wastewater Treatment in Medford is the least expensive choice at $30,623,000. For Summer Irrigation of City Property, the present worth cost is $36,891,000, approximately 20 percent higher. Advanced Wastewater Treatment is ' the most expensive alternative at $52,275,000. Key Cost Features Wastewater Treatment in Medford consists primarily of a long interceptor sewer from Ashland to the existing BCVSA sewage collection system; no WWTP improvements are needed. This alternative takes advantage of the existing infrastructure of the Medford RWRF and avoids the costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the Ashland plant. Summer Irrigation of City Property consists of upgrading the existing WWTP and purchasing land and irrigation equipment. This alternative takes advantage of the less stringent wintertime requirements for discharge to Bear Creek—nutrient removal processes are not included. Tertiary filtration would be used to reduce effluent solids and BOD to the required levels. The high cost of Advanced Wastewater Treatment is not surprising because it represents the / most complex treatment system. A brief inspection of the site layout (Figure 9-5) shows the / relative complexity of this alternative. / Precision of Cost Estimate 1 / As discussed in Chapter 7, the estimates in this report are order-of-magnitude estimates: in / general, the more complex the alternative, the less precise the cost estimate—especially at the 1 1 Ashland Facilities Plan/October 19, 1995/4384 / t 9-18 e Table 9-5. Estimated Capital and Annual Costs for Advanced Wastewater Treatment , Item Costa 4 Grit removal 15 Bar screens, headworks 435 ` Primary clarifier, existing 131 Primary clarifier, new 327 Alum mixing and feed 196 Aeration tanks, existing 244 Aeration tanks, new 1,675 , 100 Recycle pumping Blowers (including building) 820 Secondary clarifier no. 1 317 4 Secondary clarifier no. 2 909 e Tertiary clarifiers 3599 704 Tertiary filter 349 Disinfection Chlorine scrubbing 183 Chlorine Contact 37 Anaerobic digester 2 887 Digester control building 910 - Demolish secondary digester 139 Gravity thickeners 625 !1 Sludge thickener 1,103 Facultative sludge lagoon 1,148 r.+ Sludge transport 320 Operations building 473 Subtotal 15,646 6 ElectricaLrmstrumentatiod 3,129 Yard piping° 3,129 Contractor indirects/mobilizauond 2,034 Subtotal 23,938 Contingency at 25% 5,985 Subtotal 29,923pprrn ge-a on at 25 96 7,481 Engineering,adminuaan $e2 cA4tr+K- r Soil filter pilot study 0 do-A15 4t Total capital cost 37,403 le Antral operating cost 1,231 a Costs based on an Engineering News-Record construction cost index of 6100, e expected to occur at midpoint of construction, November 1998. b Includes sludge force main and pumping station. Estimated at 20 percent of subtotal. d Estimated at 13 percent of subtotal. r r Ashland Facilities Plan/October 19, 1995/4384 �w 10-9 6PPA-f (22%&ATE W su,, A a r- oPfro,.) f� Table 10-4. Cost Estimate Summary Phase 1 Phan 2 Phase 3 Total item Cost,51,000 Cost, (1,000 Cog, $1000 Cog, $1,000 Headworks,including odor control 435 - - 435 Grit removal - IS 15 1 Primary clarifier 131 - - 131 Aeration basins,existing - 244 - - 244 Aeration basins,new 419 1,257 - 1,675 S Blowers(including building) 656 164 - 820 Secondary clarifier No. I 186 - - 186 Secondary clarifier No. 2 12 - - 12 Secondary clarifier No.3 702 702 S Disinfection 193 - - 193 Chlorine scrubbing 129 - - 129 . Chemical feed/flocculation - - 200 200 . Tertiary filter - 469 235 704 ourfall 100 100 Irrigation pumping stations - 274 - 274 . Effluent gorage/'urigation system4 - 1,598 500 2,098 . Anaerobic digester No. 2 - 609 - 609 Digester control building 447 447 Demolish secondary digester - L39 - 139 Sludge thickener - - 540 540 Facultative sludge lagoon - 801 801 Sludge transport - 216 - 216 r Subtotal 2,505 5,189 2,997 10,672 ' Elearical/insrr»mentationa 501 1,038 595 2,134 Yard pRinga 501 1,038 595 2,134 Contractor indirect eosts7 326 675 387 1,387 r Subtotal 3,832 7,940 4,555 16,328 Wedands3 338 - - 338 f Subtotal 4,170 7,940 4,555 16,666 r Contingency at 25% 1,043 1,985 1,139 4,166 Subtotal 5,213 9,925 5,694 20,832 Engineering/administretionat 25% 1,303 2,481 1,424 5,208 r Subtotal 6,516 12,406 7,118 26,040 r Inds 1,046 - - 1,046 Toed capital cost 7,562 12,406 7,118 27,086 r Notes: I Costs based on as Engineering News-Record construction cost index of 6100,expected to occur at midpoint of construction, 11/98. 2 Includes sludge force main and pumping station. • 3 Cost taken from Woodward-Clyde Facilities Plan Addendum. ! 4 Pond would provide 30 days'worth of effluent storage. rs Assumes purchase of 700 acres for irrigation. a Estimated at 20% of subtotal. r Estimated at 13% of subtotal. r r Ashland Facilities Plan/October 19, 1995/4384 OP ASH�9 CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Public Works Engineering Division MEMORANDUM OREGON: DATE: April 26, 1999 TO: Paula Brown FROM: Jim H. Olson SUBJECT: Water Rights Questions Following is a brief response to your questions regarding water rights posed in your memo of April 22, 1999: 1. OWNERSHIP OF EFFLUENT WATER A holder of a water right to the natural flow of a stream has no right to water stored by another,water right holder. The water right of the down stream user applies only to natural flow and not to flow emanating from impounded water or other generated waters. Mr Roth has no clam to treatment plant effluent. 2. TRIBUTARY RIGHTS Eagle Mill Farm's water right is from Bear Creek and even though Ashland Creek is a tributary of Bear Creek, no claim can be made against any waters within Ashland Creek. Neither the City or any other water right's holder is required to satisfy downstream rights which are not actually permitted off that stream. If the Ashland Creek water is fully allocated, it can be completely used to the point where there is no flow entering Bear Creek even though there are water rights off Bear Creek just below the confluence of the two creeks. There is no requirement for a supplement of Ashland Creek water into Bear Creek. The letter from the Water Master, dated July 5, 1973, has no bearing upon Eagle Mill Farm. It pertains only to rights actually permitted off Ashland Creek. 3. WATER RIGHTS PRECEDENCE Water rights are allocated based upon the date of certificate. The only time that a preference would be established is when there are two or more rights of the same date. In that case, domestic and stock watering rights would take precedence over irrigation rights. •'txhlblt n' STATE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARVIENT JACKSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE • MEDFORD, OREGON •• 97501 • Ph. 773-621 1 July 5, 1973 TOM McCALL � •� C,OVEENOQ ONE IS L WHEELER r Mr. Allen A. Alsing Director of Public [dorks City of Ashland, City Hall Ashland, Oregon 975L0 41� Attention: Mr. Ed 1'alloa Dear Sir: � '-- below the total Pursuant to your request, I z= 1's i___ _i `r` Pr'!Or'-y of 1872 or water riff=t= On °c '' vrEe` �.'II1C1 ..^.aV° a tor^ older. This scc::s the segregatic- uII3 City of Ashland and the different ditch rights involve=: C4 --. i ,. a �_- �s Ditch Ri_hts Total c.f.s. in Cr�e:, C. c: A_.___ 12.707 2.793 � 15.50 .. 2.793 13.00 10.2g7 2.503 � 12.00 2.213 11.00 8.737 1.923 10.00 . 8.077 1.633 9.•00 7.3=7 �L 1.343 8.00 6.181 1.149!` 2.33 0.992 1.338 ,� f To keep you up to date on the =a=y tra- ers which the City has aade, the above figures i:clu-:0 t^E rights accu�red throug transfer nu=gibers F-21, .+-j0, ;-39, `-49+ X3389 2390, 2595, and 2701. Very truly�yours, David C. *:en�rix Water .':aster, District 13 J DCH:pg i wsN4"'- � mvrart ,4um February 1. 1991 :,Fo4�GOa,, Q. Steve Hall, Public Works Director CAT rQl'TI: James H. Olson, Asst. City Engineer CM 4 jUbjQ& City of Ashland Water Rights The following is a list of the certified water rights listed in the name of the City of Ashland: CERTIFICATE NO. PRIORITY DATE NOT A RATE 1. 10843 May 20, 1927 Reservoir Permit 800 acre feet # 596 15. 000 CFS 2 , 10856 May 31, 1927 Reservoir - Irrigation 3 , 11090 Apr 25, 1934 Sulphur Springs 0. 035 CFS 4 , 15998 1854 Rogue River Decree 5. 000 CFS to . it for municipal, 1861 1864 " if Y 3 .750 CFS domestic, „ 11 1' 2 . 500 CFS stock and 1872 „ „ 1. 000 CFS irrigation 1882 purposes 1854 " " " 7. 000 CFS for power „ 14 . 500 CFS generation 1868 „ „ 7.500 CFS „ 1889 25. 000 CFS • -•r for power to 1904 Ashland Ice & Storage Co. 5, 15999 1860 Rogue River Decree 25. 000 CFS formerly Ashland Iron Works for power 6. 16024 1856 Part of Million 0 . 434 CFS Right 7 , 35922 1858 Part of # 16014 0 . 080 CFS 8 , 35923 1858 Part of # 16013 0 . 080 CFS City of Ashland Water Rights February 1, 1991 Page Two 9 . 39241 1856 Supersedes # 35906 0 . 045 CFS 10 . 39242 1864 Confirms change 0 . 042 CFS in use, change in diversion approved Sept. 30, 1970 11. 39243 1864 Transferred from 0 . 160 CFS # 35084 12 . 41651 1858 Supersedes # 16018 0. 022 CFS 13 . 41652 1864 Supersedes # 37660 0. 073 CFS 14 . 41772 1858 Supersedes # 16002 0. 040 CFS 15. 44474 1858 Supersedes # 16003 0.080 CFS 16. 44474 1885 Supersedes # 16019 0.030 CFS 17. 44573 1854 Supersedes # 16027 0. 190 CFS The above rights have been proved and are certified by the Oregon Water Resources Department. The rights are permanent and are listed under or have been transferred to the City of Ashland. The following is a list of transfers which have been approved but have not yet received certification. ORDER 90. FILING DATE PRIORITY RATE 1. 3856 Dec 29, 1977 1856 0.040 CFS 2 . 3935 Apr 19, 1978 1864 0.080 CFS 3 . 3965 Jun 5, 1978 1864 0.090 CFS 4 . 5580 Jan 7, 1985 1856 0.034 CFS 5 . 5581 Jan 7, 1985 1858 0.011 CFS 6. 5656 Jun 7, 1985 1858 0.034 CFS 7 . 5861 Oct 9, 1986 1864 0.090 CFS In addition to the above, permit no. 47628 was issued (application no. 61057) to the City, granting authority to appropriate water at the maximum rate of 30.0 cubic feet per second to develop 1103 .8 theoretical horsepower horsepower for hydroelectric power generation, dated Copies of all certificates, orders and permits are attached. pentarandum ".,G4EGG�•�� 17 August 1993 Brian Almquist, Steve Half r James H. Olson, Assistant City Engineer ram: SUhjL>rt- Revised Total for Water Rights on John Billings' Property I met with John Billings Monday regarding the water rights pertinent to his property along North Main and Jackson Road. As I mentioned in our conversation on Thursday, there are several water rights listed in the Rogue River Decree that the Water Master did not include in his search. In checking with John, he assured me that none of the original farm property had been sold in the last 80+ years and he had never received any proof from the Water Resources Department for any areas or amounts less than the original water allocations. In view of these findings, I feel that full and complete water allocation as shown in the original 1919 adjudicated decree should prevail. It would be the responsibility of the Water Resources Department to disprove any of these claims for water rights. The only way in which water rights can be lost is through non-use (of more than five (5] consecutive years), or by sale of the property or the right itself. According to Billings, neither of these conditions has occurred. Following is a list of permanent non-interruptible water rights. Certificate No. 15911 Proof 65, Volume 2 has a priority date of 1874 and is a right for 0.22 second feet of water off Wrights Creek, by the Mark-Brown ditch, to irrigate 17 acres. Of the original 17 acres, only 5 lie within tax lot 200 reducing the rate to 0.065 second feet. Proof 66, Volume 2 has a priority date of 1873 and is a right for 0.38 second feet of water for irrigation for 30 acres off the Meyers-Billings ditch from Wrights Creek. Of this right, only 14 acres is applied to tax lot 200 which reduces the rate to 0.18 second feet. Certificate No. 15912 Proof 67, Volume 2 has a priority date of 1869 and a rate of 0.24 second feet for irrigation of 19 acres through the W.C. Meyer Ditch off Wrights Creek. All of this right is applied to lot 200. 17 August 1993 0 Page 2 Certificate No. 15914 Proof 68.5, Volume 2, with a priority date of 1885 is a right for 0.10 second feet of water for irrigation of 6 acres from Dann Spring. This right is not directly attached to the Billings' property; however, there is a right to use any unused portion of this water that flows into Wrights Creek. Although there may be some benefit, it is not possible to quantify this right. Certificate No. 16001 Proof 154, Volume 4 has a priority date of 1858 and is a right for 0.30 second feet of water off the Helman Irrigation Ditch (off Ashland Creek). This right is for irrigation of 24 acres of land. Proof 155, Volume 4 has a priority date of 1864 and originally provided 0.50 second feet of water for the irrigation of 40 acres from the Smith-Meyer-Roper Ditch (off Ashland Creek). Of the original 40 acres, only 19 acres remain within the Billings' ownership and with current rights. The 19 acres under present use has a rate of 0.24 second feet. SUMMARY Proof No. Acres Irrigated Priority Rate 65, 2 5 Acres 1874 0.065 C.F.S. 66, 2 14 Acres 1873 0.180 C.F.S. S- 67, 2 19 Acres 1869 0.240 C.F.S. 154, 4 24 Acres 1858 0.300 C.F.S. 155, 4 40 Acres 1864 0.500 C.F.S. TOTAL 102 Acres 1.285 C.F.S. 1.285 C.F.S. X 448.8 = 576.71 gallons per minute 576.71 G.P.M. X 60 = 34,602.5 gallons per hour 34,602.5 G.P.H. X 24 = 830,459.5 gallons per day In addition to the above listed rights, 13.5 acres of land are irrigated through the Talent Irrigation District. This right is a seasonal right and not year round. There may also be some benefit from Dann Spring; however, it is impossible to determine how much benefit might be derived from it.. According to Billings, there are other springs located on the ., Revised local Yor wamr nigu� v.. ••••••• .... a •-v—• y 17 August 1993 Page 3 ,• property which also add to the water supply. I can find no record of a right to these springs; however, if the springs are located entirely on the Billings' property and the flow used on the property as well, then he does have a valid right to those springs as well. Again no flow rate,is known. In further research of the seasonal right off Wild Cat Gulch (certificate no. 18915), it was found that this right did not apply to tax lot 200 and should not be considered in any event, since it is marginal at best. JHO:rs\bdW...w cc: Kip Lombard Department Head Meeting AGENDA Wednesday, May 5, 1999 9:00 a.m. Public Works Conference Room 1. Agenda Development/Planning (attachment). 2. Public Information/Communication items. 3. Review of council meeting of May 4. 4. Evaluation of Strategic Planning Process. 5. Information Technology Committee. 6. Transfer of Budget Appropriations. 7. End User Support Committee. 8. Community Works Request for Storage Space. Absent: Copies to: Barbara Christensen (Edepthead\t 999\agendaMay5) ~ - ( � ■ ® ) ) ■ 2 - ® a ) ® e ) ® ® G � 2 0Z mm � 0 E ■ 2 \ a Q � t = ) \ ^ ) ) ƒ - q \) -Ei � ( ( § i § « aa \ a \ / ( fzz U \ }\ ) k 0 0 ) N ce a , ce cn n: 6 a Q, rz O y 7 Q U b Y v O 0 O ° J � C � � w d E o a. ^ o0 O o o > N ai b cl V A A a v o CID ,sae ° ,a to ;t 00 E `n aNi C 0. F 'C .F w °tom � F U '� � U � •N 4 0 0 to i..2 0 N W c s c 3 0 o p U q •p O N O U O ° a c o 3 7 .� F ° E ° > b 0 E° 0w °c^° o 'a ^° v " a fy. .-1 pc°, p^ a o ro v T o 'c oA y b d R' E 3 ° ° Y to o a W o U o N a. ° o G R .^� a A a a o o 0 to c W h C F 3 a g CF 4 E7 � r aF v o A o° c 8 b .a�� .N o o 3� a .0 7 o c E° $o u ° O xc:° bv ° p � nu a N N City of Ashland • E. Main Street OR • Memo To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Mike Freeman,City Administrator " CC: Department Heads Date: 05/03/99 Re: Evaluation of Strategic Planning Process for 1998—1999 Attached to this memo is an evaluation form for the strategic planning process that lead to the development of goals and objectives that formed the basis of the recommended 1999—2000 Budget. As you recall, there were several steps in the strategic planning process the Council and staff undertook this year, including: 1. Conducting a citizen survey/soliciting input from Boards and Commissions and the public 2. Development of a community values statement 3. Development short and longer term goals 4. Implementation 5. Developing a reporting process 6. Refinement and updating The staff are currently working on developing a reporting process for the Council to keep you up-to- date on the implementation of the strategic plan. A remaining task for this year is to solicit input from the Council and staff on the process that was used during the strategic planning program. In my estimation, there were portions of the process that went well and others that did not, your feedback will be used to improve the process in the future in an attempt to make strategic planning a useful and valuable tool for the Council and staff. Please complete the attached survey and return it to Mike before you leave the study session today. This information will be summarized and brought back to Council for further discussion at an upcoming Study Session. •Page 1 1999 Strategic Planning Debriefing 5/6/99 Overall,did the 1999 strategic planning process meet your expectations? Yes No Do you feel that the time spent on strategic planning was well spent? Yes No Do you see value in proceeding further with the strategic planning program? Yes No Do you feel the consultant who worked with the City over the weekend workshop was effective? Yes No If yes,would you like to see him back to help out in the future? Yes No In hindsight,what part of the process would you have changed this year? What part of the process did you think went well? What recommendations do you have to make the process more effective this coming year? Parting Comments: 1999 Strategic Planning Process Strategic Planning Iterative Process Process Inputs: Citizen Survey Boards and Commissions Public Forum Analysis Phase: January Strategic Planning Workshop Product: Community Values Values Statement Statement Product: Organizational Mission Vision Statement Statement Product: Short and Long Term Long&Short Term Goals(drive Budget Goals Established Process) Organizational Alignment& Implementation Implementation Through the Budget Process Annual Reporting Refinement 8 (Scorecard) Planning Process