HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-10 Study Session minutesDublin City Council
Study Session
Monday, August 2, 2010
Minutes of Meeting
Mayor Lecklider called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Present:
Council Members: Mayor Lecklider, Mrs. Boring, Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Gerber, Mr.
Keenan, Mr. Reiner. Vice Mayor Salay was absent due to illness.
Staff: Mr. Foegler, Ms. Grigsby, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Ms. Puskarcik, Ms. Ott, Ms.
Crandall, and Ms. Colley.
Facilitator: Ms. Novak
Background
Ms. Novak noted that Council met last in April/May of this year to review goals. At that time,
there was agreement on five focus areas: civic engagement; financial health and economic
vitality; livable, sustainable and safe; public services and infrastructure; smart, customer-
focused government. Council agreed that these five focus areas must go well in order to
maintain Dublin’s current status as well as improve it in the future. Some language was
developed around each of these focus areas, which is being distributed now for Council’s
review. Council also has previously received a report from the retreat. This framework
was used for two purposes. First, staff reviewed the past goals back through 2006 and
organized them around the five focus areas. The items remaining on the blue portion of
each page are those goals that are still considered to be active, in progress, and very much
a part of the day-to-day work in the community. Then, Council identified five new goal
statements at the retreat and indicated these are the areas to focus on for the next two
years.
Staff sent out a memo last week in preparation for this session. They collapsed the first
three goals under the economic development focus area into one statement. For the Bridge
Street Corridor and 21st Century Library goals, the language was refined. The intent is to
have the goal statements more aspirational and less tactical, and to have strategies
identified that would help to achieve the goals. This revised language is being presented to
Council tonight for consideration, so that Council can agree on what the goals are and what
staff will focus on. Strategies can then be identified to achieve the goals.
As the agenda indicates, the plan for tonight is to refine the 2010-2011 goals, to review the
current Council goals, and to discuss the development of strategies for achieving the goals.
She reviewed the ground rules for the session, as Council had agreed upon at the last
retreat. Council concurred with the agenda and the ground rules for the meeting.
Framework
Ms. Novak asked if Council is comfortable with the five focus areas identified as those areas
which must go well to continue to make this community successful.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the definitions seem all inclusive of what Council has
agreed upon.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 2 of 21
Mrs. Boring stated that she is not certain that performance-based management systems are
really related to smart, customer-focused government. How is that related to “responsive to
the desires of the community?”
Ms. Novak summarized that she feels that the statement is too specific versus broad and
general.
Mayor Lecklider suggested that it could be revised to indicate, “by employing, among other
strategies …”
Mrs. Boring stated that her point is the performance-based management system is a
strategy to accomplish that goal.
Ms. Novak indicated that there are focus areas, goals, and then strategies in terms of
hierarchy. All of the focus areas to a certain degree make a policy statement, i.e. we’ll do
this by ….
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the staff must be responsive to the citizen customer. To
ensure this occurs consistently, in their work plan or performance-based management
system, assessment is made and strategies employed to ensure the focus.
Mr. Foegler stated that an obvious example of a performance measure is the citizen survey,
in which citizens measure how satisfied they are with a given service. Those are the kind of
performance measures put in place to ensure focus on customer satisfaction.
Ms. Novak stated that there is a distinction being made between performance-based
management of the organization and its services versus individual employee performance.
This does not relate to individual performance evaluations.
Mr. Keenan asked for clarification: is Council working on 2010 goals or 2011 goals?
Ms. Novak responded that goals are being set that will drive the work plan for 2011. The
capital and operating budgets are worked on in late summer and fall. To a large degree,
the work plans for 2010 were already set with the 2009 budget. The process is building
toward 2011.
Mr. Keenan asked if Council has reviewed the 2010 goals and progress.
Ms. Novak responded that is part of tonight’s agenda – review of active goals from 2007-
2009. She noted that the new goals are referred to as 2010-2011 goals, as the ones done
previously were for two years as well.
Mr. Keenan asked if Council is behind schedule at this point on setting goals for 2011.
Mr. Foegler responded that part of tonight’s agenda is to discuss the calendar for each year
and the timing of various sessions.
Mr. Keenan stated that spring and summer are good times to work on goals for the following
year.
Mrs. Boring noted that previously, Council’s goal setting sessions were held in January or
February. The purpose was to establish Council’s goals for the next year before work on
the CIP and operating budget occurred.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 3 of 21
Ms. Novak inquired if Council members were satisfied with the five focus statements as
written.
Council members indicated they were satisfied.
Ms. Novak indicated that there would also be priority goals. Those translate into work unit
objectives.
(Ms. Novak handed out a graphic picture of the framework for the Dublin city-wide strategic
plan.)
Ms. Novak stated that there should be no goal that does not link up to one of the five focus
areas. The idea behind the strategic plan framework is that it enables the organization to
organize its work around Council’s priorities.
Mr. Foegler stated that the programs have been defined in each department. For example,
in Economic Development, the programs are retention/expansion, attraction and new
business formation. Under those are various strategies. At this time, only the rudiments or
first pieces of the plan are available.
Mr. Keenan inquired when Council might expect to see key performance measures
Ms. Novak stated that sometime this fall, a presentation of the full body of performance
measures will be provided to Council.
Mr. Reiner inquired if regular reports on each goal would be provided.
Mr. Foegler responded there could be quarterly reports on some key measures. In the
future, the public may be able to access online dashboard reports on Council’s goals.
Calendar
Ms. Novak inquired what timeframe is desirable for the initial brainstorming of goals for the
following year.
Mrs. Boring suggested the month of February.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the challenge is always that some achievements for the
current year are yet to have occurred. Setting goals for the next year assumes the current
year goals will be met and requires a flexibility for potential change, if they are not.
Mrs. Boring stated that the objective is that when the following year’s budget is worked on, it
can be tied into the goals for that year. For instance, the 2011 budget would be tied into the
2011 goals.
Mr. Foegler stated that if the brainstorming occurs early in the year, and again later in the
spring, the programs and initiatives that could advance the goals could be defined. Based
on that information, it would be possible to budget accordingly. Along with definition of the
strategies/programs, cost estimates can be provided and prioritization can occur. This
would provide an opportunity for quarterly updates, as well.
Mayor Lecklider stated that the meeting to refine the initiatives would probably occur in May
or June. Because of Council’s schedule, that would need to occur before July.
Mr. Keenan agreed that it would give time for staff to prepare the CIP and operating
budgets.
Mr. Gerber stated that he sees the schedule differently. This is all driven by the budget, so
he would want to have a review of 2010, and identify what might need to be adjusted before
setting the new goals. To him, the process begins at this time of the year and is finalized,
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 4 of 21
along with the budget, in November. How can Council discuss in January the goals for
2012? Unexpected things occur, such as the stock market crash in September 2008. The
budget had to be adjusted quite a bit. It should also have affected Council’s goals for the
coming year, but Council remained on the same track as had been set before that.
Therefore, he would prefer to have Goal Setting in the fall. For instance, at this time,
Council should be reviewing what has happened in 2010. After that review, Council can set
the goals for 2011.
Mrs. Boring responded that would not give staff the ability to prepare the CIP for the
following year. The CIP budget hearings are in August, and staff begins to prepare it earlier
in the year. She inquired how long staff needs to prepare for it.
Ms. Grigsby noted that, typically, the CIP process begins in March.
Mrs. Boring inquired if he is suggesting that staff not establish the CIP until they review
everything that is occurring.
Mr. Gerber clarified that his point is that there are many things in the budget process, which
Ms. Grigsby must address throughout the year. Much of what she does is to monitor the
activity in that given year in order to know the funds that will be available the following year.
Mrs. Boring stated that the flexibility remains for staff to come back to Council. Staff’s
responsibility is to accomplish the goals, so staff needs time to align the CIP with Council’s
goals.
Mrs. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that was her earlier point. In February, there is no
assessment of how the current year’s goals have been met, so it is necessary to be flexible.
However, as Mr. Foegler suggested, an update in May and another in August would provide
some valuable reports. At that time, it might be necessary to make some adjustments, if
something unanticipated occurs. That gives a frame of reference for building the budget.
Mrs. Boring stated that the goals are “big vision.” The goal may not be pursued
aggressively if the funds are not available, but the goal can still continue to exist. The City
had a goal of acquiring green space for ten years. Budget modification may occur based on
availability of funds.
Mr. Foegler stated that there are different time horizons. Finances are monitored currently,
and progress on the programs to implement goals is also current. However, the goals can
have a life of more than a year or two. Council has asked for regular updates on the
programs to meet the goals. Quarterly reporting would provide Council financial updates,
the progress of the programs and goals, and allow for refinement of the upcoming goals, as
needed. Strategic planning looks two-three years out, beyond the normal budget cycle,
which looks at current progress.
Mr. Gerber responded that, in that context, he concurs with looking globally, more long-
term. A previous suggestion of Mr. Keenan’s might be helpful with this, and that is a
Council “To Do” list. That would assist Council in looking more forward.
Mr. Keenan stated that the list would also help Council to stay on track with the calendar.
Mr. Foegler stated that from the Administration’s perspective, a quarterly process would
evaluate the status and simultaneously look forward 12 – 36 months. It would keep
Council’s goals alive and translate to current programs.
Mr. Keenan stated that a good example of this situation is Council’s request for information
on funding mechanisms for historical districts. It seemed the requests are often ignored.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 5 of 21
Mr. Foegler stated that staff has been aware of this. Ms. Ott took the lead and staff now
has a new software that tracks these tasks. Immediately after a Council meeting, the task
goes online, along with the names of the staff who have the lead responsibility for it. If
dates are missed, notifications are sent. It is still a new tool, but it should accomplish what
is needed.
Mr. Gerber stated that it would help Council to monitor the progress on goals and initiatives
and know what should be “tweaked.”
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that having it online where Council can view it is adequate. It
does not also need a narrative.
Mr. Foegler summarized that Council is requesting a quarterly report, integrating status
reporting as well as quasi-annual goal setting and perhaps program development that plugs
into the current CIP and Operating Budget cycles.
Ms. Novak stated that the quarterly report will provide an update on City finances, Council’s
Goals, the Performance Measures related to work unit objectives and programs, and
Council’s To Do list. What about the timing issue?
Mrs. Boring stated that, typically, following Council’s Goal Setting, the goals are finalized
and forwarded to Council for adoption. This year, it is different; Goal-Setting has been
followed by a “refining” process. After the refinement, will the goals then be adopted?
Mr. Foegler responded that a final version will be provided to Council for formal adoption
that will include the new goals, strategic focus areas, and perhaps Council’s previous goals.
Mrs. Boring inquired how the timeframe would coordinate with the CIP budget project.
Mr. Foegler responded that new goals were not needed this year to formulate the CIP;
however, they do have operational impact, including economic development.
Ms. Novak inquired if the goal setting process, including the retreat, refinement and formal
adoption, would occur over the months of February through May with the final adoption at
the first June meeting – all to be completed before Council’s summer recess.
Council concurred with that timeframe.
Ms. Novak noted that the concern seems to be that if Council’s goals are not adopted until
June, does that allow sufficient time for the CIP and budget cycles.
Mrs. Boring stated that once Council has concluded its refinement of the goals, it should be
possible to adopt the goals at the next meeting.
Mayor Lecklider stated that if Council had its first goal-setting discussion in February, staff
would have a good idea of Council’s direction. Refinement of the goals should occur no
later than an early to mid-May meeting, but it could probably be done sooner than that.
The adoption would immediately follow.
Mr. Gerber stated that if the latest date for that meeting was early to mid-May, the quarterly
update meeting would provide the opportunity to make any needed adjustments.
Council concurred on the goal-setting timetable as stated.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 6 of 21
Ms. Novak recommended that the date for the initial goal-setting meeting in February
should be determined no later than the preceding October. She inquired if staff required
any feedback as to what Council would like in the final report.
Mr. Foegler responded that he believes staff has sufficient direction; staff will prepare an
outline of the direction they have heard for Council to review and approve.
DRAFT 2011 GOAL STATEMENTS
Ms. Novak stated that staff has wordsmithed the draft statements developed at Council’s
Goal Setting retreat to make them more aspirational. Strategies for each goal would be
listed under each of the five goals.
GOAL STATEMENT 1:
Staff has actually combined the first three goal statements proposed at Goal Setting into
one statement.
Previous Goal Statements 1-3 were:
1. Create and facilitate venues for interaction between elected officials
and our business community citizens to better understand priorities
and issues impacting operations and opportunities in the region.
2. Create a partnership between local businesses and government
leaders that facilitates business development.
3. Engage (x%) of companies per year to build relationships,
understand needs and express appreciation for being in Dublin.
Revised statement:
• Facilitate networking between business and government to understand
business needs, challenges and opportunities to optimize Dublin’s business
climate.
For discussion purposes, staff recommended the following potential strategies:
• City Council discussed several possible approaches for increasing
engagement with, and better utilizing the intellectual resources of, our local
business community. The Administration recognizes that in order for
Council and staff to identify the most productive opportunities for such
engagement (whether it be some type of more formal partnership or more
informal interactions), the Administration needs to provide Council with a
comprehensive and thorough description of our current Economic
Development work program, with key initiatives we are proposing for 2011.
This will also provide the assessment needed by Council for consideration
of the potential inclusion of these initiatives in the 2011 Operating Budget.
Many program initiatives have been added to the economic development
efforts of the City in recent years, and we would like to have the opportunity
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 7 of 21
to provide a thorough overview of the current and proposed strategies.
Since many of these Economic Development initiatives are the outgrowth of
the high priority consistently placed upon such goals by Council over the
years, we recommend that Council direct staff to:
i. Provide a comprehensive overview of the major programs,
strategies and actions associated with the City’s current
Economic Development efforts, including a description of the
intended outcomes of such actions, and provide the key
elements of the new initiatives proposed for 2011, including
staffing implications and other budgetary impacts. The new
initiatives should include specific measures, which will advance
Council’s 2010-11 Goal.
Mr. Foegler explained the rationale for the recommended revision. The goals were
developed at the end of the retreat, so there wasn’t an opportunity for refinement. Staff
considered the ideas embodied in the economic development-related goals. In the past, the
economic development goal was always a top priority, and many strategies and initiatives
are currently in place to further that goal. Staff needs to provide Council a presentation that
lists all the elements of that program today. Council has expressed a concern about the
limited number of staff resources devoted to the economic development program,
particularly in view of the number of responsibilities Mr. McDaniel has assumed. Staff
proposes some remedies for that in the upcoming budget. Preceding that, Economic
Development would like to share an overview of the entire Economic Development program
– the existing strategies aligned with retention, expansion, attraction and new business
development. Corresponding budget implications and performance measures emerge with
those strategies. This will assist in further defining where opportunities for additional
engagement exist, which is what most of the goals are related to. That presentation could
be shared with Council in the next 35-40 days.
Mr. Reiner stated that the preparation of all these statements, strategies and other drafts
have taken a good deal of time to develop. How much has that effort cut into the
productivity in actually pursuing economic development of the community? There seems to
be a large amount of bureaucracy and a lot of “presentation,” which, of course, is helping in
informing Council. He assumes more office staff is necessary to facilitate all of that. He is
more concerned about “getting out and getting the work done,” – focusing on the actual
knocking on doors and soliciting businesses for the City, versus preparing endless reports
for City Council on what staff will attempt to do.
Mr. Foegler responded that the presentation is being prepared to help Council understand
what Economic Development is already doing. Council can then better decide which new
elements will be added, with which there would be associated costs. Information has
already been provided to Council on some of the existing programs – fiber, incubators, and
national marketing initiatives; however, there are a great number of initiatives in the
Economic Development program, all of which relate and work together. Because Economic
Development is such an important part of Council’s direction to staff, it would be helpful for
Council to be aware of the existing picture. The presentation would review what the present
program consists of, the rationale for where resources are currently distributed, where
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 8 of 21
additional resources are needed, and how successful implementation of new initiatives
would be measured. This would really add to the objectives Council is trying to achieve.
Mr. Keenan stated that the crux of that goal is whether Mr. McDaniel believes it would be
helpful for Council to be involved with the business community. Several Council members
believe it would be. Council members participated in a recent tourism event at the
Columbus Convention Center, which people from throughout the nation attended and
looked at this area as a tourist destination. Some people were very impressed that Council
members were involved. It could be very useful, and some Council members would like to
be engaged in that effort.
Mr. Reiner stated that it is important that Mr. McDaniel determine at what times that could
be beneficial. At the recent CanAm Games, for instance, it seemed helpful for Council
members to mingle with the visitors.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees, but she also believes it is Council’s
responsibility to use their resources and relationships for the benefit of the City – resources
of which Mr. McDaniel may not necessarily be aware. Her reaction was similar to Mr.
Reiner’s when she initially read the proposed revision -- that it was a put off. Council
members spent most of their Goal Setting meeting discussing their economic development
concerns and their interest in personal participation in it. Several months later, staff’s
response is that they believe Council needs another report. She assumes that Mr.
McDaniel has a chart that displays the Economic Development activities and progress –
that is adequate for her. She is concerned, as Mr. Reiner expressed, that Council will be
given a lengthy and complicated document. The end result will be that the status remains –
which is that Council is not engaged at all. The world has changed so substantially, and
continues to do so, that it is a disservice not to use the elected body on occasion. Dublin
City Council is not used at all, except for an annual distribution of certificates of appreciation
to Dublin businesses. That is not a strategic use of relationships. That is what Council was
trying to achieve. At this time, there are not even 2.5 staff members dedicated to Council’s
core goal for the community. It is that goal that has set Dublin apart from most other
communities by achieving its present economic base. The present structure diffuses that.
She believes that Mr. McDaniel is put in a position that it is impossible to achieve the level
of Council’s expectations. Council needs to agree to staff that department properly and to
be very strategic about the use of the resources of the future. Many more “Nationwide”
situations will occur in Dublin, and it will be critical to know how to respond and fill those
buildings. Many buildings are currently empty within the City. Businesses are being given
incentives to locate or relocate in Columbus. In most cases, Dublin has every ability to
provide these incentives as well. Columbus has a critical need to substantially develop their
economic base, which drives this effort. Dublin is one of the primary suburban
communities that bring in high income tax generating companies, as opposed to retail.
Mr. Foegler responded that, first of all, he would hope that when Mr. McDaniel gives Council
the presentation on Economic Development programs that it would not be a volume of
meaningless charts. The Economic Development budget is actually an investment in a
series of strategies, for which staff is accountable for their success or lack of success. For
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 9 of 21
staff to set up opportunities for Council engagement, they must identify not only the
opportunity but also what is hoped to be achieved from it. That is the strategy component –
identify initiatives, how they would reinforce current initiatives, and the expected outcome.
The City is receiving extraordinary returns for the existing elements of its economic
development program. Other economic development entity professionals have expressed
to him their envy of Dublin, which has the lowest office vacancy rates in the region. It is
typical for firms, such as Nationwide, to come and go in Dublin, and those spaces are re-
filled. He believes that the more that Council understands the key elements of the current
program, the anticipated outcomes, the opportunities for Council engagement and the
expected measurable benefits of that involvement, the additional resources Mr. McDaniel
requires and the expected benefits of those resources, the better able Council will be to
make the best policy decisions.
Mr. Gerber stated that he believes Council has a role in reaching out to the business
community; he has previously referred opportunities to Mr. McDaniel. It is also important to
look at the environment, ensuring that Dublin remains a business-friendly community.
Mr. Foegler responded that topic is also covered in Mr. McDaniel’s presentation.
Mr. McDaniel stated that staff proposed a combination of the three proposed economic
goals. As he was working on them, his impression was that the third was an outcome of the
previous two. He attempted to re-word the goals separately, but the final outcome was the
one, combined statement that is proposed tonight. He firmly believes that Council’s
involvement is critical to the Economic Development initiative -- he did not intend to
inadvertently imply otherwise. He believes their process reflects that -- Council shares
potential contacts with them, and he also informs Council members of upcoming venues
they can attend/participate in if their schedules permit. He appreciates Council members’
interest in participating.
Mr. Keenan stated that on every occasion in which he has made a referral to Economic
Development, there has been a rapid follow-up call. He believes the retention of existing
businesses is also critical, and that may be an area in which Council member involvement
could be beneficial.
Mr. McDaniel stated that he has researched economic development strategies in depth –
and the primary strategy is working with the existing businesses within the community.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has no objection to one, combined statement. Her
concern was about the accompanying recommendation (i) “to provide a comprehensive
overview of the major programs, strategies and actions associated with the City’s current
Economic Development efforts….”
Mr. Foegler responded that staff understands Council’s direction that it not be burdensome
– to make it understandable, clear, and focus on the policy-related major elements of the
program.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that Council prefers a reasonable document that can be
added to, or updated quarterly – a useful tool for staff and Council.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 10 of 21
Mr. Reiner stated that it should be a brief document that keeps to the point. It should
include the current results of the Economic Development initiatives in numbers.
Mr. McDaniel stated that Council has reviewed and approved most of the Economic
Development initiatives through the City budget hearing process, but he does not believe
they have ever received an overview of all the Economic Development programs.
Mr. Gerber stated that he would prefer a dialogue, not a lengthy report.
Mr. McDaniel responded that he would present it as a dialogue, backed up with a list of the
programs.
Mr. Gerber stated that Columbus has its Columbus Partnership initiative, etc. To his
knowledge, Dublin is not discussing similar ideas.
Mr. Reiner stated that Dublin has been voted “best suburb.” Where is Dublin marketing that
distinction?
Ms. Novak inquired if the presentation would address that.
Mr. McDaniel responded that it would. In regard to measurement of their performance, on
occasion he would be able to provide information regarding the level of deal flow without
divulging items of confidentiality. Although Council may hear about the jobs at a company
that have been lost, they would also be aware of the large number of potential jobs in deal
flow that Economic Development is actively pursuing. That type of ongoing report would
provide Council a comfort level regarding potential jobs in process.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that type of report would be beneficial, because a Council
member could know someone in that company, which could prove helpful.
In response to Mr. Reiner, Mr. Foegler indicated that is the type of information that staff
would like to present – information about the communication, the budget, and the
anticipated results.
Mr. Reiner stated that he is not sure if his question related to advertising or other.
Mr. Foegler responded that Ms. Puskarcik has actually created informational pieces for the
Realtor’s Association, the business community and residents. There are many venues and
different target audiences to whom messages must be provided to reinforce Dublin’s
positive image.
Mr. Gerber stated that he believes this is the number #1 priority and warrants more
discussion.
Mayor Lecklider stated that discussion seems to concur with what staff is suggesting. They
have also addressed Council’s need for reassurance concerning Council member
involvement with economic development efforts, as was identified during the earlier Goal
Setting discussion. The discussion everyone desires will be held. There also seems to be a
consensus that an overview would be helpful.
Ms. Novak summarized that there is Council agreement on the Goal Statement itself. The
strategies that were developed and discussed were to engage the elected officials, and
attraction, expansion and retention. The refinement of the strategies will be discussed in
conjunction with the comprehensive Economic Development presentation, within the next
30-45 days.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 11 of 21
GOAL STATEMENT 2:
Previous Goal Statement 4 was:
• Fully engage the Dublin Community to work in partnership with Columbus
Metropolitan Library, OCLC and other educational and corporate interests
to develop a 21st century library facility, which will provide opportunities for
life-long learning, educational synergies and support the City’s economic
development, while advancing the communities overall quality of life.
Revised statement:
• Develop a 21st century library facility, which will provide opportunities for life-
long learning, educational synergies and support the City’s economic
development, while advancing the community’s overall quality of life.
For discussion purposes, staff recommended the following potential strategies:
• Fully engage the Dublin Community, including all relevant stakeholders, to work in
partnership with the Columbus Metropolitan Library/OCLC and other educational and
corporate interests with the purpose of developing a strategic action plan, including
key benchmarks, to accomplish this goal.
• Staff should provide a recommended approach for organizing and advancing this
initiative by no later than _ [timeframe]_.
Ms. Novak noted that it would be useful for Council to identify the City’s role in this goal. Will
the City initiate and drive this goal, or support it as it happens? Is the language of the goal
statement in keeping with the spirit of Council’s goal?
Mr. Foegler pointed out that the revised statement is actually the second half of Council’s
original draft statement, as that portion expressed the actual goal. The first portion of the
original statement was actually the “how” piece, which is now incorporated into the
proposed strategy.
Mr. Gerber stated that he would like to expand the statement to include not only the library,
but also other educational facilities. There are several other educational institutions within
the City, and it may be time to foster some synergy with them, as well, to provide lifelong
learning opportunities to the residents and business community. The objective of this goal
is not only to have a new library in Dublin.
Mr. Keenan stated that Columbus State, Franklin University, and perhaps others, now hold
some classes in Dublin, which is very convenient for the residents. The Dublin Schools
need to be engaged in this, and are considered in the strategy as stakeholders. Combining
the City’s influence and the Schools’ influence with community support would be a powerful
force to achieve this.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 12 of 21
Mr. Foegler noted that in his regular monthly meeting with Mr. Axner, School
Superintendent, he has made him aware that Council has identified this as a priority and
would be pursuing partnerships to that end.
Mr. Keenan suggested that the Council member liaison to the Dublin School Board could
actively engage the School Board in this discussion.
Mr. Gerber responded that he is the School Board liaison, and he has discussed this with
the board members. They are interested in establishing a greater presence with Franklin
University and other schools, not only for their benefit, but for the benefit of the residents
and businesses. He discussed the concept only with them, not strategies.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she agrees that it should be a broader educational goal
with the Library being only one component of this educational system.
Mr. McDaniel suggested the following revision to the Statement: “…the Library and
educational facilities and programming, …” He has recently been in discussions with
Columbus State and their provost concerning the potential expansion of their facility. He
has been pursuing that from a workforce perspective. They discussed next generation
campuses, which are not so much "physical" facilities as "on-line" facilities. Many degrees
can now be obtained online, but a place for classes to meet in groups is also needed.
Mr. Reiner stated that Upper Arlington had a levy on the ballot for an independent library. Is
it the intent of Council to continue a partnership effort with the Columbus Metropolitan
Library?
Mr. Keenan responded that he would be interested in all options.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that she is also interested. However, Columbus
Metropolitan Library has tremendous vision for the expansion of their library system, and
Dublin is #1 on their list. Several conversations about an expansion have already occurred.
The funding will be different than has been traditional. There are people within this
community who have the resources and would be interested in helping to support a Library.
It would be great to do this in partnership with the Library.
Mr. Keenan noted that there are many associated issues, including the location, to be
discussed. The OCLC campus and other locations have been suggested. Various
partnerships are possible.
Mr. Gerber stated that the language states "develop a 21st century library and educational
facilities which provide opportunities for life long learning.” Is the suggestion to include
“programming?”
Mr. McDaniel responded that he suggested that additional terminology, as not everything
would be “brick and mortar.”
Ms. Novak suggested it be inserted to say, “provide program opportunities.”
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher suggested replacing “facility” with “center.”
Mr. Foegler noted that would still be a physical place.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 13 of 21
Mr. Reiner stated that at Goal Setting, Council was discussing the need for a physical place
with a computer work area, something similar to what Upper Arlington has. It should consist
of multiple components – library, learning center, computer classrooms, and an informal
coffee/gathering area. In that setting, it should be possible for three to four schools to utilize
the center.
Ms. Novak suggested “develop a 21st century learning center including a library and
educational facilities.”
Mr. Reiner stated that this reflects a transition from a library with rows of books to more
inclusive library science.
Mayor Lecklider responded that this goal is for more than just a more sophisticated library
than Dublin currently has, but a supplemental education center or environment.
Mr. Reiner inquired if OCLC might be interested in becoming significantly involved in this.
Mr. Foegler responded that staff has discussed that possibility. At the ICMA Learning
Center for Libraries website, which are cities are partnering with libraries, the first four
names listed are OCLC individuals. It seems the goal relates to the need to determine
what and where the facility should be, including what educational opportunities exist that
could be jointly developed with a library.
Mr. Keenan stated that the funding mechanism would be complicated because of the City’s
jurisdiction.
Mr. Foegler inquired if this goal would lend itself to establishment of a formal group to
explore the options.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she has discussed this issue with Patrick Losinski,
Executive Director of the Columbus Metropolitan Library. The library has an upcoming levy
on the ballot, and it is important not to hinder their effort.
Mr. Foegler agreed. Because “library” is being removed from the central focus of the goal,
Council could consider the need for a group or task force to explore the options.
Mr. Gerber expressed support of an exploratory group and indicated he would be willing to
serve on that body.
Mayor Lecklider suggested the body could include Council members.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that her vision would not be for a Council task force, but a
community-based body.
Mr. Foegler noted that there is a need for an entity to take the lead in pulling the group
together.
Mr. Foegler stated that staff would check for some models of how those entities have been
brought together. Mr. McDaniel will want to include the economic development people of
several universities, along with the Library, OCLC and others. Staff would bring back some
recommendations based upon the models they find and some key individuals to consider as
candidates for that body.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher recommended looking at the New Albany model. They developed
something totally paid for by community participation.
Mr. Reiner suggested the Upper Arlington model, as well.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 14 of 21
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Upper Arlington is not autonomous. They are affiliated
with the Columbus Metro Library; however, Upper Arlington raised the money.
Discussion continued about other communities’ funding processes.
Mr. Gerber stated that he would prefer to work with the Columbus Library.
Mrs. Boring stated that she would prefer to avoid a Franklin County concept and have a City
of Dublin concept, due to the different counties in which Dublin lies.
Mr. Keenan inquired about the taxing perspectives of this issue with the three counties. For
instance, because Upper Arlington pays Franklin County taxes, do they receive any funding
for their library from Franklin County?
Ms. Grigsby responded that those jurisdictions that have their own libraries do not pay the
County levy for the Columbus Metro Library. They have a separate levy, which their
residents pay.
Ms. Novak stated that the strategies would include looking into opportunities with the Dublin
School Board and OCLC. What is the preferred language for the goal statement?
Council consensus was to replace the word “facility” with environment.
Mr. Foegler stated that at Goal Setting, Council eliminated the exploratory focus in favor of
a development focus. Based upon tonight’s discussion, does Council prefer to use
“explore the opportunities to develop a 21st century…” rather than “develop a 21st
century….?”
Council consensus was that the goal should be to develop the learning center.
Ms. Novak inquired if one of the strategies would be to recommend a timeframe.
Mr. Foegler inquired what timeframe would Council desire, which would relate to
establishing the task force rather than having a financial focus.
Mr. Gerber responded that he would be interested in having a recommended plan by the
end of the year.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she did not perceive this to be a staff-driven effort. Along
the way there might be the need for the City government to donate money or other, but she
believes that the effort should be community and Library-driven. This should not be a City
of Dublin initiative, as there would then be the danger of the City taking it over. There is a
need for this to be a very diverse group of people and to be very open. When Dublin is
involved, some people assume the City will fund it. This needs to be structured in such a
way as to avoid that assumption.
Mr. Gerber concurred, but asked who would get the idea off the ground?
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that Columbus Metro Library has some ideas on how to
do that. They have some ideas to share concerning a future Dublin library expansion.
Mrs. Boring inquired if it would be appropriate within that defined approach to have staff
review models in other communities and recommend how best to carry out that type of
approach.
Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees that this effort should be community driven, but also
include government representation and economic development entities. It should not be
government driven.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 15 of 21
Mr. Foegler stated that staff’s report could provide examples of what other communities
have done. In addition, perhaps the language should clarify that this would not be a City-
driven and funded venture.
Mr. Keenan stated that this community may have a different need than other communities, a
technological, online focus.
Mr. Reiner stated that the learning center must be very flexible. OCLC’s involvement in this
goal would be very appropriate. Today, libraries are having book sales and reducing their
level of book resources in favor of online resources.
Mrs. Boring stated that the Dublin Library has one of the highest circulation rates in the
system. It is fine to have a flexible concept in view of future needs, but she does not want
to diminish the need for and inclusion of a circulation library.
Mr. Keenan stated that at this point what is needed with this Center is not understood.
Mr. Gerber responded that the purpose of the task force would be to answer that question.
Mr. Foegler stated that the existence of OCLC in Dublin and the changing library system
today do reflect a different direction. A recent NPR report indicated that the Stanford
Engineering College Library is eliminating 85% of its paper documents.
Mayor Lecklider stated that, nevertheless, the need for books remains. It is not likely they
will be entirely replaced with electronic versions for some time.
Ms. Novak that the goal statement has been resolved. The strategies will include that staff
will provide research on how other cities have approached it, and that the City’s role is to
support a community-based process. The City will launch the effort but not be the entity to
build the center. She asked if staff needs any further direction at this point.
Mr. Foegler indicated that the discussion had advanced the issue as far as possible at this
time.
GOAL STATEMENT 3:
Previous Goal Statement 5 was:
• Adopt a plan for the Bridge Street Corridor, which will enhance the City’s character
by virtue of a diversity of options. The plan shall include multiple uses, which appeal
to a diverse population, including entertainment, eating, retail, residential,
commercial and office in a walk-able environment.
Revised statement:
• Complete the Bridge Street Corridor Plan to provide a vision for the corridor,
which will reinforce the City’s long-term competitiveness, create a vibrant and
walk-able environment with a dynamic mix of land uses and housing types,
and that enhances the City’s long-term sustainability.
Strategies have already been initiated to complete this goal by the end of 2010.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 16 of 21
Mr. Foegler stated that the Bridge Street Corridor plan process is already moving forward,
and completion is anticipated this year. He anticipates Council’s next steps will be to
identify ways the City could partner with major development entities that are planning and
developing in Dublin to start to implement the Plan and identify what capital projects the City
could begin to prioritize. The biggest supplementary work will be the transportation and
traffic work. OCLC has already retained Kittelson & Associates to begin a broad traffic
analysis. The Bridge Street Corridor Plan should be completed this year. At this point,
there is no need to further articulate anything other than additional thoughts about the
process, dates or deadlines. However, those are logical outgrowths of this process and
would be identified in the implementation portion of the final phase.
Mr. Gerber stated that people ask him when the City would build this project. He explains
that it is not the City who will build it. It is a concept, the implementation of which will be
market driven. He would like to clarify that message through this statement or in some
other way. Currently, there is an effort to revive Tyson’s Corner – an area just outside
Washington, DC. Their concept is similar to this concept – an entertainment center, a circle
of transportation, bikepaths, offices, and residential area. Perhaps it would be good for
Dublin to have a COIC-type development plan for this area to further advance the concept
for the market and developers.
Mr. Foegler responded that in terms of the zoning and regulatory items, the key design
parameters will be a product of the next phase, Phase 3.
Mr. Keenan stated that this will require a partnership of the City with the Schools in regard
to the Indian Run Elementary site. This land mass is critical to the development of the
corridor.
Mr. Foegler stated that he agrees. However, he disagrees that any major development in
the corridor is dependent upon obtaining control of the school site. There clearly needs to
be a plan for redevelopment of the school site to expand the critical mass of Historic Dublin.
Mr. Keenan stated that the most exciting idea in this concept was the additional bridge
linking Historic Dublin across the river. Many people would make use of it.
Mr. Foegler stated that Council will need to make decisions from an investment perspective.
There are some opportunities -- the bridge, a park along the river, or other elements that
may have value but would not directly leverage the capital infrastructure for which a
redevelopment project would require the City’s partnership. Perhaps some combination of
both could occur. During the implementation phase of this report, that identification needs
to occur. In his estimation, a pedestrian crossing, particularly if there is a park to anchor it
on the east, would give the City significant “bang for the buck.”
Mrs. Boring stated that she is disappointed that, given all the work that has been done,
Council is not receiving information sooner.
Mr. Foegler responded that it is partly due to his efforts to encourage Stavroff and OCLC to
invest simultaneously, and at significant levels, with the same kind of planning that Dublin is
doing so that these things move forward in tandem. OCLC has spent significant dollars with
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 17 of 21
a consultant and recently hired Kittelson, the top traffic engineering firm in the nation. They
will be meeting with them later this week to learn what their analysis has shown. Stavroff
and OCLC are the pivotal projects in this plan, and he has been trying to work with them so
that their plans align with the City’s to the greatest extent possible.
Mrs. Boring stated that she appreciates that effort, but she still cannot understand why
Council cannot be more aware of the progress.
Mr. Foegler stated that he would like to have feedback regarding what role Council wants to
play in the next phase of this project, which is probably the most important phase, and what
role do they want the Planning Commission to have. Does Council want a Planning
Commission review process of the next phase before it comes to Council? Does Council
want to clarify the general ideas they support from a policy perspective and have the
Planning Commission work out the details?
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that it would be best if Council, P&Z, BZA and ARB all heard
the same thing at the same time. Then everyone is able to communicate and learn from
each other in the most constructive way. They would be able to hear Council’s point of
view. This development vision is very exciting and all those groups need to have a joint
dialogue.
Mr. Foegler inquired if Council would view this as a large public meeting, in which the public
could observe but not participate.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that would be consistent with what has occurred
previously.
Mr. Foegler responded that meeting could be scheduled.
Mr. Reiner noted that the direction from Council must be challenging – direction to acquire
the school property, making that area a commercial area, also buying a large amount of
land and removing several businesses on the other side of the river to build a pedestrian
bridge over the river -- all with limited funds. Will Stavroff and OCLC want a certain level of
participation from Council in order to execute this plan to the highest expectations? These
are three very expensive goals Council has established, and he is not sure how all can be
worked out.
Mr. Foegler responded that is what the Plan needs to provide to Council – what are the
likely CIP costs? OCLC has completed their analysis and approved a program with
anticipated development costs, TIF and income tax revenues, etc. The engineering traffic
study is necessary because the Plan calls for a greater level of density. What will be
required in additional infrastructure investment? The costs of moving Riverside Drive and
other elements have been evaluated previously. This involves a very long-term strategy
and will be very expensive. The good news is that much denser development produces
much more TIF revenue than traditional development. This is the information that will be
presented to Council so they can evaluate the choices and costs and determine what will
begin to be scheduled in the 5-year CIP budgets. He has recommended that the CIP
budget begin to show a reserve of dollars, so as opportunities emerge, Council can see how
they could be accomplished.
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 18 of 21
Mr. Gerber inquired if that discussion would precede a joint discussion with P&Z and other
boards and commissions?
Mr. Foegler responded that some portions could occur prior to that. However, discussions
about the big ideas, such as the pedestrian walkways and parks, would be necessary
before the cost analysis. Will it be a 20-year idea or a five-year idea?
Mayor Lecklider stated that the traditional model is to involve P&Z, BZA and ARB. While
their input is valued, the more people involved, the longer it takes to have a final result. He
would not object to their being involved in the discussion if there was a clear understanding
that it is Council who is leading this. Council will be the body ultimately accountable to the
constituents.
Mrs. Boring stated that perhaps Council needs to view the joint plan with OCLC and Stavroff
before it is discussed jointly with the P&Z, BZA and ARB to be sure everyone is on the
same page.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher responded that nothing more would be learned than what is already
known. It would be the same with a greater level of detail.
Mr. Foegler stated that the level of development is a lot different; the square footage of
development is massively different from anything Council has seen. The issue Mayor
Lecklider has brought up is worth considering. At Goal Setting, Council talked about
broader policy issues -- being competitive 10-30 years out. There are housing needs and
different office needs than previously and sustainability concerns – and it is Council’s
broader policy issues that are driving this particular goal. Bringing in the boards and
commissions would also bring in the usual land use or design issue discussions. Council’s
broader policy framework is what needs to continues to drive the discussion. Council has
made this a much broader consideration than just about land use, compatibility or design.
This project is proceeding for many other public policy reasons. Within that framework, the
input can be structured however Council desires.
Mr. Reiner agreed that, due to the large concept, it would be preferable to keep the
discussion among a smaller group until the development begins.
Mr. Foegler inquired if Council would like to schedule a first work session to involve only
Council. There would still be opportunity for other work sessions.
Mr. Gerber expressed agreement that the first work session or more should be limited to
Council. However, at some point, P&Z, BZA and ARB should be involved, as they offer a
body of knowledge and history that would add value to the process.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher agreed. They need to be aware of the bigger policy vision to
understand the project going forward. She does not want to wait until January for Council’s
work session.
Mr. Foegler responded that work session should occur early in this next phase.
Ms. Novak summarized the discussion points:
• A consultant has been retained to complete the Plan in 2010
• The City will establish the proper land use regulations and zoning for this corridor
development
• There will be a first work session with Council only; later, there will be a joint work
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 19 of 21
session with P&Z, BZA and ARB
• The goal statement is satisfactory
What will be the time frame for the first work session?
Mr. Foegler suggested within the next 60 days.
Mrs. Boring suggested it be within the next 45 days.
Mr. Foegler concurred, noting that means it would have to occur between the CIP
discussions and the Operating Budget discussions.
Ms. Novak stated that the initial five 2011 goals have been reduced to three goals, all of
which fall within the first category of “Financial Health and Economic Vitality,” although they
may touch on the other focus areas.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that she did not think the Learning Center should have a
“Financial Health and Economic Vitality” focus.
Mr. Foegler agreed. That goal incorporates multiple focus areas.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that “Financial Health and Economic Vitality” would not be its
primary focus.
Ms. Novak inquired if it would be “Livable, Sustainable and Safe,” or "Civic Engagement?”
At Council’s Goal Setting retreat, Council placed it in the “Financial Health and Economic
Development” area, probably because of the link between the Learning Center and
economic development. It can be placed wherever Council desires; however, it is important
to determine so that in future reports it is located appropriately.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that this goal should not be driven by economic development,
and she is concerned that is what would happen if classified as its primary focus.
Mrs. Boring stated that she understands Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher’s perspective. However,
she still sees a need for economic development support. As people are brought in, they are
looking for things like this. It also shows that Dublin is looking forward, is aware that the
world is changing, and that there is a need for learning centers. Educational values are
important to the community. She sees this more as support of development, not an
attraction.
Mr. Foegler that the Bridge Street Corridor development goal is similar – it is a combination
of focuses on economic development, sustainability, and livability. It also may not be good
to categorize it because it speaks equally to all the focus areas. Are there ways this should
be structured, so that if there are strong connections between the focus areas, that is
acceptable?
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that really advances the strategic thinking as opposed to the
silo thinking – the silos are integrated. She believes that all three goals actually relate to all
the focus areas – they are over-arching goals.
Ms. Novak agreed. They are much more holistic and integrated with all the focus areas.
Mr. Foegler stated that is the reason they rose to the top – because they speak to all.
Ms. Novak stated that the work assignments for the goals would then be fed out to various
work units as determined appropriate.
Status of Active Goals
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 20 of 21
Ms. Novak stated that the information provided includes a list of the previous goals for
which staff continues to pursue an active work plan. Does Council desire that its quarterly
report and “To Do” list continue to report progress on the existing goals, as well as begin to
incorporate the three new goals?
Chief Epperson stated that staff’s suggestion is that with the first Quarterly Report, an
update on the current, active 2008-2009 Goals would also be provided. Some of them
could be concluded or replaced by one of the new goals where it would be appropriate to do
so.
Ms. Novak stated that there may be some goals that Council wants to continue as active
goals. Keeping them in front of Council would help Council remain connected to them.
Mayor Lecklider requested clarification of the mechanism or process for review of the goals.
Ms. Novak summarized that on a quarterly basis, Council would receive a report that will
include the status on all of Council’s goals and strategies -- responsible division or work
unit, challenges, budget issue, timeframe. It is not clear if Council intends to set aside the
time for a discussion or mini work session, if need be.
Mr. Foegler stated that he views this as an expansion of the Quarterly Financial Update that
Council now receives. The Goals Progress discussion could follow the Financial Update.
Mayor Lecklider stated the accompanying discussion could then address any strategy
refinement needed.
Ms. Novak inquired if staff had any update at this time on the 2008-2009 Goals.
Mr. Foegler responded that a Goals progress report was distributed to Council at the April
Goal-Setting Retreat, and there are no further changes to report. There was no discussion
at that time, however, regarding the written report. If Council desires, that opportunity can
be included in a future discussion.
Mrs. Boring inquired if the Goal-Setting discussion involved any review of the past goals.
Did Council remove any of the previous goals, such as 2006-2007 Goals, so that there
would be no need to further address them?
Ms. Novak responded that the only goals that were removed from the list were those that
were deemed complete. Every other goal is considered active and included in staff’s
strategies.
Ms. Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the date associated with the goals simply identifies at
which Goal-Setting the goal was set. Some of the goals are ongoing.
Mrs. Boring stated that at that point, it should be removed from the Goals list, as it would be
considered policy, not a goal. An example would be the economic and planning goal to
revitalize the Historic District. Wouldn’t that now be considered an ongoing City policy? If
the ongoing goals were removed from the list, it would be shorter.
Ms. Novak suggested that at the first quarterly report where the Goals Progress report is
given, Council take a critical look at the existing goals and identify which ones should be
Dublin City Council Study Session
August 2, 2010
Page 21 of 21
removed because they are replaced/duplicated with a newer goal and which goals would
be considered ongoing. At that time, Council should be able to shorten the list.
Mr. McDaniel stated that another way to identify the ongoing goals is to say that they are
institutionalized.
Mr. Gerber stated that some of them are actually included in the Community Plan.
Ms. Novak stated that the agenda item discussion has been concluded. She thanked
Council for inviting her to facilitate their goals discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
___________________________________
Clerk of Council