Loading...
2004, 10-05 Study Session MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember (excused) Steve Taylor, Councilmember (excused) Absent: Rich Munson, Councilmember (excused) Steve Taylor, Councilmember (excused) MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session October 5, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Staff: Dave Mercier City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Ken Thompson, Finance Director Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager Cal Walker, Police Chief Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Bing (Greg) Bingaman, IT Specialist Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Guest: Stan McNutt, Facilitator Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded everyone that this is a study session, and requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of the meeting. Employee Introduction — Long Range Planning Manager Greg McCormick introduced Mike Basinger, recently hired Associate Planner, who previously worked for the Boundary Review Board and assisted incorporation studies for Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley. Council welcomed Mike to the staff 1. Mayoral Appointments: Ad Hoc Library Committee — Nina Regor Deputy City Manager Regor reported that steps have been taken to get this committee up and running and get the work in place in a relatively short time; that copies of the RFP issued in August, and copies of the evaluation tool to help evaluate the proposals, will be immediately sent to those appointed committee members. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to appoint Deputy Mayor Wilhite and Councilmember Flanigan as council representatives to the committee. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor DeVleming mentioned that eight applications were received for consideration to this committee; it was then moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to appoint the following individuals to the Ad Hoc Library Committee: Jennie Willardson, Julie Rosenoff, Joan Dunham, Donna Connell, and Joni Driskell. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor DeVleming also mentioned that Councilmember Munson will be out of town until mid October, and that Councilmember Taylor had to go out of town today for another meeting, is in route, and hopes to arrive shortly. 2. Department 2005 Budget Highlights /Workplan — Nina Regor Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned that this is an opportunity for each department to summarize their goals and activities for 2005. Deputy City Manager Regor explained the Executive and Legislative Support and reiterated the six Council goals. Study Session Minutes 10 -05 -04 Page 1 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 10 -12 -04 Police Chief Walker then explained the several aspects as shown on the Public Safety slide, followed by Ms. Regor's Operations and Administrative Services explanation, adding that one of the goals is to carry out a process to define the employee and organization's values, and another research option includes alternatives to incarceration. Concerning cost allocation, Ms. Regor stated that they are working to secure the details of the county's overhead cost for next year's contract and on standardizing the language in the contract. Public Works Director Kersten then explained his goals, adding that concerning the wastewater treatment options, the Department of Ecology continues work on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study, and the County is working on defining the costs; concerning street operations, staff is working to develop information on traffic calming management program with a goal to distribute information to the communities to get feedback on noise and traffic issues in various neighborhoods. Director Kersten mentioned that the County typically does traffic counts in July and August and generally engage the assistance of college students in that count, but that counts should be conducted when school is in process. Director Kersten also stated that we are starting to implement control of levels of service such as tracking the reporting and repairing of potholes; he added that street painting is typically done in the spring and staff is researching the logistics and economics of using markings which will last longer than the paint currently used. Concerning stormwater, Director Kersten said that assessing drainage problems and implementing new swale design methods will be improved with the addition of the two previously approved staff positions. Director Kersten also highlighted the capital projects, which are all from the transportation improvement plan approved last spring. Community Development Director Sukup explained her portion of the presentation, and stated that within six months of the Comprehensive Plan, we must have regulations in place to implement the plan; she went over the adoption process of the Plan, and added that several workshops are planned, beginning with one set for this Thursday. Director Sukup also mentioned that Mr. Crosby will be giving Council a report next week on the sign regulations. Parks and Recreation Director Jackson reported that four responses have been received in response to the recent RFP; and that we have been notified under separate letter that the County will not operate the aquatic program unless they also receive the Parks Maintenance Contract, and that staff is in the process of exploring other possibilities for the aquatic program. Concerning CenterPlace, staff will present a report next week on the construction and other details including furnishings, technology, security, and needed software and staff; that there is a need for a marketing plan for the facility; and that another issue for future consideration is demolition or other future uses for the existing senior center building. Finance Director Thompson then briefed Council on financial matters including impact fees, cost allocation plan, loan repayment, contingencies and reserves, and ongoing costs. Deputy City Manager Regor stated that the preliminary budget was presented in August, that staff did projections for those unfinished projects; that since we are now in the final months of the year, staff will bring policy issues to council for future actions, and will be giving wrap -up reports on activities such as code enforcement, capital improvement projects, and building permits. City Manager Mercier added that the first public hearing on the 2005 budget is set for next Tuesday; that we will be updating the budget book for council which will incorporate all the changes since council first considered the preliminary budget; and added that there will be another change in proposed budget as we did not provide for the recently voter approved 1 /10 of 1% additional tax for criminal justice and public safety purposes; that we not sure how much that will raise, but an early forecast is that it might generate approximately $600,000 annually, but that due to setup time and coordination with the State Department of Revenue, that new revenue might not become active until the first part of January 2005; that he Study Session Minutes 10 -05 -04 Page 2 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 10 -12 -04 recommends Council allocate all of the $600,000 directly to the law enforcement line in the public safety budget, as we are aware of the accelerating costs in that budget in 2005, and putting the funds there would be in conformance with statutory provisions. Council voiced no objections to placing the funds in the public safety budget. Staff then continued with their second presentation: "2005 Preliminary Budget." Finance Director Thompson stated there are still three areas of concern, (1) general fund, (2) street fund; and (3) capital needs, such as the issue of capital dollars needed to match capital projects. He also stated he feels parks will have a greater need than estimated. Deputy City Manager Regor explained slide #4 showing national trends of U.S. cities; and City Manager Mercier discussed the six year forecast; that customarily as we move forward, we would insert another layer of calculation to account for and accommodate growth and demand for services; as an example, we have a half -time IT person; with the community depending on technology as much as we do, and with adding CenterPlace with its high -tech lecture hall, Mr. Mercier said he can't imaging going another six years without adding to our IT programming; and that scenario is true across the six year forecast. Mr. Mercier added that a more detailed statement on problem statement #2 will be given next week.; and he reminded Council we are trying to itemize the range of possibilities and then present scenarios and a recommendation of which avenue to pursue. After Finance Director Thompson explained the local government revenue options (slide #11), City Manger Mercier said that these next slides show how funding from a utility tax would flow through our system; he explained that if a utility tax were enacted, its first priority would be to close the gap in the general fund each year; and if there were additional remaining revenues after closing that gap, then those funds would go to the street fund. He added that in all scenarios, there is no funding available to address problem area #3 — the capital needs. Mr. Mercier said that staff recommends to council that the option which gives the greatest likelihood to provide fiscal stability and viability is a utility tax, and staff recommends council consider implementing the 6% utility tax effective January 1, 2005, because it does the most to remediate the deficit schedule; and staff suggests that as council moves through the decision making process in adoption of the 2005 budget, that this be made part of that decision packet in the final adoption of the budget scheduled for November 9, 2004. Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 7:40 p.m. He reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. 3. Facilitation Process - Stan McNutt, Facilitator City Manager Mercier introduced facilitator Stan McNutt, and stated that this presentation will be a type of expanded council- check. Mr. McNutt said this is an opportunity to discuss procedural items to refine; that when this Council worked on the Governance Manual, it was done with the expectation that there would be changes as time progressed. He discussed the mayoral role in the council /manager form of government, and went over the accompanying document entitled "Traits of Outstanding City Councils and Mayors." Mr. McNutt also briefly touched on additional documents for further council review, including "Changing Roles for Public Leaders" and "Understanding the Mayor's Office in Council - Manager Cities." There followed a brief question and answer session concerning the traditional roles of council and mayors, public perception of the mayor's role, and percentage of cities with our form of government. Mr. McNutt also mentioned that the Mayor's Handbook as an excellent resource. City Manager Mercier added that now that Councilmembers have experienced elective office, there are many things encountered over time where one had an idea of how it would operate, yet over time the reality suggested that sometimes things happen differently; that tonight's topic is an exercise in moving forward in time, and that he is certain there are some unfilled expectations, that this is not a question of any councilmember's or Mayor's service, but he hopes that there is now a fuller sense of the role of councilmember and mayor. Mr. Mercier added that he feels this body will encounter a growing demand for contact and presence in the community, by attending civil meetings or as speakers. Study Session Minutes 10 -05 -04 Page 3 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 10 -12 -04 4. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVlemint No topics were suggested to add to the advance agenda. 5. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier Mr. Mercier mentioned that the audit process is wrapping up, and an audit exit will be scheduled soon; and that we expect the final report in November; he mentioned we also expect no findings or recommendations for changes; and after their very thorough examination of our practices of purchasing, bookkeeping, etc, that we will get a clean audit. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. Christine Bainbriige, City Clerk Michael DeV leming, Mayor Study Session Minutes 10 -05 -04 Page 4 of 4 Date Approved by Council: 10 -12 -04 City of Spokane Valley 2005 Preliminary Budget David Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Ken Thompson, Finance Director October 5, 2004 City of Spokane Valley Budget Looking Forward Ongoing funding for operations: General Fund Street Fund Funding for City match on capital projects Six Year Projected Shortfall Summary (10/5/04) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Operations. General Fund $ $ (1,128,000) $ (2,100,000) $ (3,805,000) $ (6,060.000) $ (8,515,000) Street Fund (2,905,000) (3,235,000) (3,590,000) (3,970,000) (4,385,000) Capital Needs: Parks est. (150,000) (425,000) (450,000) (500,000) (500,000) (550,000) Streets (700,000) (900.000) (900.000) (900,000) (900,000) (950,000) Other? (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) Total Capital (850,000) (1,425,000) (1,450,000) (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (1,600,000) Total $ (850,000) $ (5,458,000 $ 6,785,000) $ (8,895,000 $ 11 530,000 $ (14,500,000) 2005 Preliminary Budget 10105;04 3 We're not alone: National Trends Meeting financial needs this year vs. last year 80 /. 40 " /. 20"A. 0 "mot. -20 %" -40"A. - 1.. - '4. - 1 00°4. ;.J 2111111 - 211111 2002 201)3 2004 O Kotler Able A LAME Ablc 63% of U.S. cities are less financially able than last year; 61 % expect to be less able next year More western (75 %) and midwestern (74 %) cities are less financially able in 2004 than cities in south (43 %) and northeast (59 %) United States 2005 Preliminary Budget 10)05/04 4 Funding for Capital Projects Potential Funding Sources General obligation bonds — limited -term property tax approved by voters Impact fees — charged to new development for impact of growth on the community's infrastructure 2005 proposed budget includes funding for an impact fee study (separate study needed for each type of infrastructure, e.g., parks or transportation) Initial estimates of impact fee annual revenues: Parks: $112,000 - $300,000 Transportation: $112,000 - $450,000 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 General Fund Six Year Forecast (9/14/04) General Fund Revenues: Sales Tax Property Tax Gambling Tax Leasehold Excise Tux Franchise Fees State Shared Revenues Planning & funding Fees Fines it Forfeitures Recreation Program Kees Irttorlund Transfers Investment Interest Total General Fund General Fund Expenditures Legislative Execierve & Legwahve Public Safety Deputy Ctty Manager Finance Legal Human Resources Public Works Planning Budding Library Parks Admm Recreation Aquatics Senior Center CenterMace General Government Total General Fund 2006 2006 2007 2000 2009 2010 Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Eeumata Estimate $ 12,400.000 S 12.750,000 S 12,877,500 $ 13.150,000 6 13.281,500 5 13,414.315 10,055, 316 10.255.569 10,458,428 10.663.012 10.689,642 11,078,339 000,000 800.000 800.000 800,000 800,000 800,000 5.000 5,000 5.000 5.000 5,000 5,000 620.000 628,200 032,462 038.787 645,174 651,626 1,035,340 1,061224 1,087,754 1.114.948 1,142,822 1.171 392 1,293.000 1,293,000 1.293 000 1.293,000 1293,000 1,300,000 1.200,000 1,200.000 1,200, 000 1.200,000 1 200.000 1.200.000 90. 000 90,000 90.000 90 000 90,000 90.000 80.000 42 42.500 42.500 42,500 42 500 36.000 50.000 50.500 51.005 51 515 52.030 27,514,056 28,173,793 28,537,144 29,048,252 29,421,163 S 29.805,202 290.305 313.529 338,812 365.701 394,957 428.553 460.389 497,199 538.974 579.932 626.327 676.433 15.652.488 16,904,887 18,257.062 19,717,627 21295,037 72 998.640 268,942 290.457 313.694 338,769 365,893 395.164 440.269 475,491 513.530 554.812 598,951 646,900 207.300 223,884 241.795 281.138 282.029 304.592 121.462 131.179 141,873 153,007 165.248 178.488 756,202 816.698 882,1234 952.597 1.028,804 1,111,109 954681 1,031.055 1,113.540 1,202.623 1298.833 1,402.740 721,780 779,501 841,881 909.210 981,947 1.080 502 2 2,268.000 2,449.440 2,645,395 2.857,027 3,085.589 1,070,262 1.155.883 1,246.354 1,348.222 1 456,080 1,572.568 158.215 170.872 184 199 305 215,250 232.470 255.818 278.283 298.386 322.257 348.038 375.881 126 592 136,719 147.657 159 469 172.227 186.005 321.299 380.000 410,400 443232 478.691 516 986 3.708.692 3.450.000 2.700,000 2.700.000 2.916.000 3.140.280 S 27,614,666 S 29,301.438 5 30 519,553 $ 32,853,116 $ 35,481 367 $ 38,319.876 Surplus/(Defitd) 5 (1,127,646( S (2,082,4091 $ (3,1104 866) S (6,000.213( 1 (8,514,574) 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 6 Street Fund 6 -Year Plan - Service Level Maintained 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Salaries. Wages & Benefits 5198,354 $214 222 $231.360 $249.889 5269,859 $291,448 Supplies 513,280 514 342 515,489 516,728 $18.066 519,511 Spokane County Engineering Contract $400,000 S432.000 $466.560 5503,885 $544.196 5587,732 WSDOT Street Maintenance - SR 290 & SR 27 5350,000 5378.000 5408,240 5440,899 $476,171 5514,265 Spokane County Street Maintenance Contract 52,185,364 52.360.193 52,549,008 S2,752.929 52,973,163 53,211,016 Minor Road Maintenance 5300,000 5324,000 5349,920 5377,914 5408,147 S440,799 Street Lighting /Signal Power 5300,000 5324,000 5349,920 $377,914 $408,147 5440,799 Consulting Serv►ces SO SO 50 $0 SO SO SRTC 538,000 538.880 541,990 545,349 548.977 552,895 Interfund Transfers - Replacement 518,645 520.137 S21,748 523,488 525.367 527,396 Total Expenditures 53,801,643 $4,105.774 54.434.235 54.788.975 $5,172.093 $5.585,861 Revenue $1,226,342 $1,200,000 51,200,000 51200.000 51,200,000 51.200,000 Fund Balance $1,515 (52,904.259) (56.138,494) (59,727,469) ($13,699.562) (518.085 423) Street Fund: Six Year Forecast (10/5/04) Surplus/(Deficit) (52,905,774) ($3,234 235) (53.588.975) ($3.972,093) ($4.385,861) 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 7 Projected Shortfall Summary: Operations (9/21/04) General Fund Street Fund Total 2005 $0 0 $0 2006 $(1,128,000) (2,905,000) $(4,033,000) 2007 $(2,100,000) (3,235,000) $(5,335,000) 2008 $(3,805,000) (3,590,000) $(7,395,000) 2009 $(6,060 (3,970,000) $(10,030,000) 2010 $(8,515,000) (4,385,000) $(12,900,000) Projected Shortfall Summary: Operations (9/21/04) Year General Fund Shortfall FTE Staff Reduction 2005 -- -- 2006 (1,128,000) (11.2) 2007 (2,100 (20.2) 2008 (3,805,000) (35.5) 2009 (6,060,000) (54.9) 2010 (8,515,000) (74.9) Six -Year General Fund Projected Shortfall: Impact on Law Enforcement Staffing — Service Level Outcome Assumes 3% annual growth in cost of FTE Does not assume potential off - setting revenues, e.g., grants Scenario reduces 2005 law enforcement workforce by 74% by 2010 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 Salanes, Wages & Benefits $198,354 $0 $0 $0 50 30 Supplies 313.280 $0 $0 50 $0 30 Spokane County Engineering Contras 5400,000 $0 50 50 $0 $0 WSOOT Street Maintenance - SR 290 & SR 27 5350.000 $350.000 $350.000 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 Spokane County Street Maintenance Contract 52185.364 5599.820 $599.820 5599.820 5599.820 $599.820 tvinor Road Maintenance 5300,000 $0 $0 $0 50 50 Street Ughting/Signal Power $300,000 5250 .000 $250.000 $250,000 $250,000 5250.000 Consulting Services $0 30 $0 50 $0 $0 SRTC $36,000 50 S0 $0 50 30 Interfund Transfers - Replacement $18,645 Total Expenditure $3,801,643 51,199,820 51,199,820 51,199,820 51.199,820 $1,199,820 Revenue $1.223,312 51,200.000 51.200.000 51,200,000 51.200,000 51,200.000 Street Fund 6-Year Plan Based on Current Revenues 2005 2006 _ 2007 2008 2009 2010 Street Fund: Six Year Forecast (9/21/04) Service Level Afforded by Current Revenues Fund Balanance 51,5151 51,6951 51,875 52,0551 52,2351 32.415 2005 Preliminary Budget 10105/04 10 Local Government Revenue Options General Operations Admissions tax Business & Occupation (B &O) Tax Business registration fee increase Cable TV franchise fee increase Gambling tax increase Utility tax Parks Joint venture with recreational provider (SplashDown) Public Safety Sales tax increase for criminal justice (countywide) 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 11 Admissions tax (assumes 5 %) $70,000 Business & Occupation (B &O) (assumes .1% as conservative estimate; .2% is maximum allowed) $3,200,000 Business registration increase (assumes $50 fee) $111,000 Cable TV franchise fee increase (1% available) $124,000 Gambling tax increase (reversion to 5% of gross for punchcards, etc.) $150,000 Utility tax (per percent) $1,000,000 Joint venture ?? Sales tax increase for criminal justice — countywide (.2% available) $1,200,000 Local Revenue Options for Ongoing Operations — Initial Annual Estimates 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 12 Impact of Utility Tax on Six -Year Forecast Option 1: 4% Utility Tax Revenue Generated Ending Fund Balance Transfer to Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 2005 4,000.000 4.935,934 742,802 General Fund 2006 2007 4,080,000 4,161,600 4,999,592 5,043,830 4,200,829 2.484,506 2008 4,244,832 5,103,003 725,742 2009 2010 4,329,729 4.416,323 3,811,835 254,428 Street Fund 652,944 1.947,999 1,198,268 (1.664,965) (5,637,058) (10.022,919) 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 13 Impact of Utility Tax on Six -Year Forecast Option 2: 4% Utility Tax + 2% Sales Tax Growth Revenue Generated Ending Fund Balance Transfer to Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 2005 4,000,000 4,935,934 742,802 General Fund 2006 2007 4,080,000 4,289,100 4,999,592 5,056,580 4,200,829 2,599,256 2008 4,359,932 5,114,513 842,082 2009 2010 4,578,631 4,803,019 4,072,247 901,535 Street Fund 652,944 1,947,999 1,313,018 (1,433,875) (5,405,968) (9,791,829) 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 14 Impact of Utility Tax on Six -Year Forecast Option 3: 5% Utility Tax Revenue Generated Ending Fund Balance Transfer to Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 2005 5,000,000 5,035,934 1,642,802 General Fund 2006 2007 5,100,000 5,202,000 5,101,592 5,147,870 5,218,829 3,522,866 2008 5.306,040 5,412,161 5,520,404 5,209,124 5,000,388 2,547,061 1,784 .869 2009 2010 Street Fund 1,552,944 3,865,999 4,154,628 2,350,522 (1,621,571) (6,007,432) 2005 Prehminery Budget 10/05/04 15 Impact of Utility Tax on Six -Year Forecast Option 4: 6% Utility Tax Revenue Generated Ending Fund Balance Transfer to Street Fund Ending Fund Balance 2005 6,000.000 5,135,934 2.542,802 General Fund 2006 6.120,000 5,203,592 6,236,829 2007 6,242,400 5,251,910 4,561,226 2008 6,367,248 5,315,245 2,843,996 2009 2010 6.494,593 6,624,485 5,365,007 4,015,761 823,934 Street Fund 2,452.944 5,783,999 7.110,988 6.366,009 3,217,850 (1,168,011) 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 16 Staff Recommendation Implement 6% utility tax, effective January 1, 2005 This option does the most to cancel the deficits in the General Fund and the Street Fund over the six -year financial planning period 2005 Preliminary Budget 10/05/04 7 CHANGING ROLES FOR PUBLIC LEADERS The Mayor's Emeraina Role in a Changing Community Typically, mayors are seen to be the consummate head of or chief officer of the city. While their powers may vary with the form of government a city has, they typically are regarded to be the city's: • chief policy leader • "highest tanking" elected official • usually the presiding officer at council meetings • chief public relations contact and spokesperson for the city • primary liaison with other jurisdictions and government agencies • main link between the governing body and the administrators of the city • chief executive and administrative official (in cities with the strong mayor form of government) But government and governance are undergoing dramatic transition, causing a whole new perspective of the role of mayors in changing communities. Just a few of these transitions affecting the role of mayors (and all local government officials - elected and appointed) are: • the changing nature and scope of citizen expectations and service demands • the regionalization of strategic issues affecting a community, 's future and options • shifting relationships among federal, state, and local governments with the latter assuming more control and accountability for services being mandated or devolved upon them • increasingly complex interdependencies and partnerships that emerge within a community shaping policy decisions and alliances necessary to implement these policies • the increasing reality that city governments are transforming from highly- structured and benignly insular bureaucracies to virtual organizations where City employees and community members come together in highly - effective and temporary alliances to deal with specific issues and opportunities and then disband to regroup around other community issues. • The increasing consumerization of government where the "customers" demand 81 excellence, flexibility, accountability and timeliness in response to their needs and demands. • the growing difficulty in achieving community -wide consensus on highly- complex and value -laden issues resulting in what some perceive to be a growing lack of civility in local politics. • the need to replace mindsets of resource scarcity with collaborative approaches to envisioning whole new community potentials and creating a sense of resource abundance to realize those potentials. • the desire of highly professional municipal employees to be empowered and entrusted with decision - making power and resources to produce outstanding results. • citizen expectations that local government officials, elected and appointed, must see themselves not as a community's governors or administrators, but as the stewards of its very future - stewards who must ensure that the community and its vital institutions and values still exist for successive generations. • The need to involve citizens in adaptive learning about complex issues and weaning them from an attitude that " government" can fix all your problems and meet all your wants. Tough stuff for mayors. It portends a major shim in their role in terms of how they interact with, affect, and catalyze every critical element of the community. More profoundly; they must reinvent how they see and construct themselves as leaders and how every community member, individual and institutional, participates, "follows ", and also leads in this era of change, strategic choice and transition. The emerging role of mayors isn't to govern, preside and officiate. It is to engage in creating the changes that must occur in our mindsets, culture, organizations, management, processes and how we behave as individuals and stewards of the future if our communities are to toaster and succeed in addressing the challenges of our tumultuous age as we cross the threshold into the 21st Century. EmeroinQ Roles Listed below are ideas generated recently by 135 mayors, council members, and managers/administrators at a state municipal league annual conference. The question asked, "what are the emerging roles for each of the positions listed below as a resource for growing community participation and the challenges our communities are facing "? 82 Mayor • More participation in community groups to represent the city /town • Mayors must be strong advocates /cheerleaders for their cities/towns • Lead community focus in establishing vision, mission of cities/towns • Strong communicator back to council on progress of projects, issues, community contact legislative mattes, community groups • More of a facilitator • More information that needs to be digested by the mayor so heishe can translate to the people • Facilitator, Translator, Ambassador • Becoming more staff dependent - therefore less knowledgeable on details • More personal energy needed to do the job. • Need to become a good Listener, and encourage and coach citizen participation • Create forums for public dialogue • More enthusiasm /pride for city as a "node in a web" rather than step in hierarchal process • More involved regionally - more meetings, more committees, more cooperation • Educating the community about the process and about opportunities for involvement • Stronger comprehensive plans/more Iong range planning • More reliance on citizen involvement/planning commission • Stronger communication with citizens groups including attending their meetings and acting as liaison with council • Creating vision for community with input from community implementing communities vision • Become more visible, televise meetings, Internet access, phone calls, letter to key players • Recruit new council members, encourage leadership development • More interaction with community • Greater time commitment • Leadership development program • Vision, goals, action plan in alignment • New forms of communication - email, more open meetings, less formal structure • More tapped into and responsive to citizen needs • More informed about regional and state issues • Savvy in applying regional issues to respective cities • Visionary • Able to lead the strategic planning process Council Member • Team player • More community involvement • Implementor of citizens initiatives • More outreach to community • More accountability for regional issues 83 • Create forums for public dialogue • Acicnowledge respective roles of elected officials and staff • Be more involved regionally - more meetings, more committees, more cooperation • Educate the community about the process and about opportunities for involvement • Be fully informed about issues • Rely on staff more for accurate information • Work together more effectively and recognize each other's strengths, and empower one another to be effective • Balance special interests with general community needs • Stronger communication with citizens groups including attending their meetings and acting as liaison with council • Creating vision for community with input from community • Establishing trust within community • Be more conscious about budget and finances - make it and suck to it • Recruit new councilmembers, encourage leadership development • Make the time "commitment" to do the job • See big picture - not single issues • Participate in and encourage leadership development programs Mn a ager.!Administrator • More community involvement (business community) partnerships • State & Federal agency involvement on behalf of community focus • Manager /Council partnership to address regional issues • Managers, council, community, staff, working together as team players • More involvement in community • Conduit to facilitate issues to /from community, staff and council • Better customer service and accountability • Greater role as facilitator vs. director • Must stay on top of technology • Increasing opportunities for outreach and access - go to the public Community Leaders • Partnerships - coalition building • Broadening the understanding and involvement and how it affects the entire community' • Sharing of resources • Involved in developing the vision/mission of the community. Advocate. • Developing and marshaling resources to support the community • Take some of the "heat" that comes with changes • Take on responsibility for implementing the vision • Being part of the solution and offering solutions rather than only criticizing 84 • We need to train them for leadership positions in local government as volunteers on the advisory boards and commissions • Partnerships between groups, shared responsibility for selling projects and raising funds (parks, libraries, swimming pools, recreation facilities and youth oriented events, senior centers) • Make use of community leaders as information conduits to and from citizenry (downtown associations and chambers can help inform people of need for infraucture, restructuring downtown, meet with leaders to goal set city vision) • Community leaders need to be responsible for a bigger group than their organization and develop a bigger vision • Too often community leaders fcel an adversarial relationship with elected leaders • Pool resources (share parking lots with churches/schools /parks). Cities and counties serve the same people • Need a community action committee who meets quarterly and brings issues of concern to council, take information back to residents • Must have better understanding of government process RESPONSIVE LO(:AL Understanding the Mayor's Office in Council- Manager Cities James H. Svara I n November of odd - numbered years, cities throughout North Carolina hold elections to choose their mayor_ Nearly a third of them— virtually all cities with over 5.000 population —use the council - manager form of government. Thc office of mayor in those cities —that is. council - manager cities —is prob- ably the most misunderstood leader- ship position in government. Some of us may think of a mayor in North Carolina as being comparable with mayors of cities in certain other WILES. who occupy a true executive office (most visibly. the big -city mayors of thc North). Others of us may dismiss the mayor as a figurehead. North Camlinu s nnncx- ecutive mayors are commonly perceived either to be doing less than they actually are or to have more power to act than state law and the municipal charter give them. Mayors in council - manager cities are not mere ribbon - cutters and gavel - pounders. nor are they thc driving force in city government. What they are— somewhere between TN: authu. 1+ a nn rnhct Palatal St.tcnct Octuntnenf taculty at JNC• Grvi n.tt,int Fawtkul wppurt lot Ih& pngcta wa. r " -'Jitil rK Ilk: g1 arVtt Cnun,il al UM' Gnsn.htnt VtHNMtN I the two stereotypes —is an important leader who can strongly influence how well city government performs. It is difficult for voters to know how to assess candidates for mayor. Those who seek and hold the office may also need to know more about thc position and thc realistic poten- tial inherent in it. Mayoral can- didates. borrowing a page from the campaign book of the executive mayor. often present themselves as thc leader who will take charge of city government and propose bold solutions to•the city's pmblems. Once elected. however. they will have difficulty in following thmugh. Although he or she has the title of mayor and some of the popular ex- pectations for leadership associated with the title. the North Carolina mayor has no powers on which to base true executive leadership and must depend on other officials. elected and appointed. for most of what he accomplishes. He tacks both the ability to initiate policies on his own and the legal authority to implement those policies. Let's look at thc office of council- manager mayor in order to help voters know what qualities to look for in a candidate and to suggest to officeholders and candidates how they can hest fill that post. The nature of the office The council- manager mayor is analagous to a company's chairman of the board, important but not crucial to the organization's opera- tion. The government may operate adequately with minimal leadership from the mayor.. since the plural ek- ecutive organization provided by the council spreads out the responsibili- ty for policy initiation. In addition. the manager has considerable infor- mal influence. based on expertise and staff support, over the genera- tion of proposals. and he has formal authority to direct implementation. Still. the "chairman" mayor can have an impact on governmental performance through contributions to the governing process that. though different from those of the "executive" mayor. are still important. The elements of leadership can be organized in two categories. One category is a coordinative function in which the mayor is more or Tess active at pulling together the parts of the system to improve thcir in- teraction. Thc parts are the council. manager /staff. and public: the mayor has a special and close rela- tionship with each. By virtue of his Iavorcd position. thc mayor can tap into various communication net- works among elected officials. governmental staff, and community leaders. Although they can and do interact with each other in- dependently. thc mayor —if he has done his homework —can transmit messages better than anyone else in the government because of his broad knowledge. He therefore has a unique potential to expand the level of understanding and improve thc coordination among the par- ticipants in city government. The second element is guidance in the initiation of policy. which may be done as part of the coor- dinating function or separately_ The manor not only channels com- munication but may also influence and shape the messages being transmitted. He can also use more dramatic techniques to raise issues and put forth proposals. but these must be used cautiously because he runs the risk of alienating the coun- cil. whose support he needs to be effective. Variety of roles It is a testament to the diffuseness of the mayor's job that there is such variation in how thc job is per- ceived, one one goes beyond for- mal responsibilities.' In a series of interviews with and about the mayors of North Carolina's five largest cities (Charlotte, Winston- Salem. Greensboro, Raleigh. Durham) the mayors. council members. and community leaders were asked to describe the mayor's responsibilities and roles in their ci- ty. The responses revealed ten roles, which can be grouped into four dimensions of leadership —i.e., ma- jor areas in which a mayor may contribute to thc functioning of city 1. David M. Lswrencc and Wbrrcn J wtcsct. ells.. Motors Gurrevnrru in Nrinh Cunrluw IClupel Hill: (n>uituk: ur Gvvcrnmcnt. 191421. pp. 51.2. Table 1. Dimensions and Roles of Mayoral Leadership in Council- Manager Cities —Roles are identified by letters A - 1. — Dimensions are indicated by numbers 1 -IV. Ceremony and Presiding: the typically perceived type of leadership A. B. C. Ceremonial tasks Spokesman for council Presiding officer U. Communication and Facilitation D. Educator: informational and educational tasks vis -a -vis the council. manager. andior public. E. Liaison with manager: promote informal exchange between thc council and the manager and staff. F. Team leader: coalescing the council. building consensus. and enhancing group performance III. Organization and Guidance G. Goal- setter: setting goals and objectives for council and manager; identifying problems: establishing tone for the council. H. Organizer. stabilizing relationships: guiding the council to recogni- tion of its roles and responsibilities: defining and adjusting the relationship with the manager. 1. Policy advocate: developing programs: lining up support for or opposition to proposals. Iv. Promotion 1 Promoter: promoting and defending thc city: seeking investment: handling external relationships. securing agreement among parties to a project. government. Whether he engages in the roles and how well he handles them are questions that provide the basis for distinguishing among types of mayoral leadership. which are ad- dressed in the next section. The dimensions and roles of leadership are listed in Table L Ceremony and presiding. The ceremonial function is the dimen- sion of leadership that observers of city government typically see. The mayor is in heavy demand for ap- pearances at many and various meetings. dinners. and other special occasions. He also serves as spokesman for the council, enun- ciating positions taken. informing the public about coming business, and fielding questions about the ci- ty's policies and intentions. In these two activities. the mayor builds an extensive contact with the public and the media, which can be a valuable resource. In addition, the mayor presides at meetings. In so doing, he sets the tone for meetings and may exert mild influence over outcomes by guiding the debate, by drawing more from some witnesses and limiting the contributions of others. and by determining the tim- ing of resolution of issues. Councils often face difficult choices and, like Table 2. Performance Levels in Various Leadership Functions by Types of Mayors in Council - Manager Cities Ceremony Communication Organization and and and Type presiding facilitation guidance Caretaker Low Low Symobolic leader High Low Coordinator High High Activist/ Reformer High Low Promoter High ' Low Director High High small groups generally, depend to some extent on the resolve of the leader either to decide or to delay. Communication and facilita- tion. Beyond simply transmitting council views to the public. the mayor may also serve as an educator In his relations with the council. the public. the media. and /or the manager and staff, thc mayor identifies issues or problems for consideration. promotes awareness of important concerns. and seeks to expand citywide understanding by providing informa- tion. In this activity. he is not primarily promoting an idea, as in the activities discussed below, but informing and educating. For exam- ple. the mayor who systematically speaks to the press and groups about the increasing imbalance be- tween needs and revenues helps to prepare the public for a tax increase at budget time. As liaison person with thc manager. he links the two major components of the system —the leg- islative body and administrative apparatus —and can facilitate com- munication and understanding be- tween elected and appointed of- Low Low Low High Low High Promotion Low Low Low Variable Low High High ficiats. The mayor increases the manager's awareness of council preferences and can predict how the council will react to administrative proposals. Although the manager must maintain positive relations with each member of thc council, the mayor- manager interaction is an efficient way to exchange informa- tion. For the mayor to hold up his end of the relationship. he must be sensitive to the concerns of all council members, accurately convey their sentiments. and share with them what he learns from the manager Finally, as team - builder the mayor works to coalesce the council and build consensus. In this regard, he promotes cohesion without trying to guide the council in any particular direction. Council members do not automatically work well together, and the larger the council the less harmony there is likely to be. The goal here is not agreement or Iikcmindedncss, but rather to ap- proach city business as a common enterprise. The mayor as team leader seeks to promote full expres- sion, help the council work through differences expeditiously, and en- courage it to face issues and resolve them decisively. Organization and policy guidance. In the roles considered so far. the mayor has stressed com- munication and coordination. whereas the group of roles to be discussed here involves influencing the direction of city government af- fairs and thc content of policy. As goal - setter. the mayor establishes goals and objectives for council and manager. identifies problems. and sets the tone for the council. Some mayors keep track of a set of key objectives so that the council and the manager orient themselves. to accomplishing these priority items. The mayor may also be active as an organizer and stabilizer of the key relations within city govern. ment. He guides the council to recognition of its roles and respon- sibilities. He helps to define the pat. tern of interaction between council and manager, monitors it. and makes adjustments. The sharing and separation of responsibilities be- tween the council and manager in this form of government is a com- . plex relationship.: The mayor is uniquely situated to control it and better able than any other official to correct it. if change is needed. For example. the mayor may advise the manager to bring more matters to the council or fewer. he may in- tervene with a council member who is intruding into operational mat- ters: or he may seek to alleviate ten- sion between the council and staff before a serious rift develops. The mayor often handles these efforts in organisation and stabilization privately. Indeed, his ability to make such adjustments out of the spotlight is one of his greatest advantages. 2. lames H Sera. "Dichotomy and Duality Reconceptualizing the Relaionship Between Policy and Administration in Council- Manager Cinei" Public Adminurrvrion Reuel.% 45 (lanwry/Fcbruary 191151. 221.32. Finally, the mayor may be a policy advocate. As an active guide in policy- making, he develops pro- grams and Tina up support or or- ganrzes opposition to proposals. In these activities. the mayor most closely resembles the executive mayor's public persona as the city's problem- solver. The chairman mayor has a potential for policy leadership that is not sufficiently recognized. Still, the mayor should bc aware that advocating policies must be balanced with the other roles, not pursued to the exclusion of others. He must proceed subtly and more indirectly than the ex- ecutive manor. who can launch a new proposal with a press con- ference and has extensive resources for building coalitions. Still. the chairman mayor can influence the perspectives and decisions of the council and the manager. Especially if he is a mayor elected directly by the voters rather than a member of the council who has been elected to the mayorship by his council col- leagues (as some mayors are). the mayor has a vague mandate to lead. but he must take care not to alienate the council and isolate himself by moving too far away from n as an assertive advocate of new policies. Promotion. Conceptually distinct from the functions already discussed is the mayor's role in pro- moting and defending the city. He may be involved in external rela- tions and help secure agreement among parties to a project. For some mayors. the promoter role is a simple extension of ceremonial tasks. Others are active initiators of contacts and help develop possibil- ities for the city. As offic,:.: representative, the mavo: r.as exten- sive dealings with officials to other Nelson Wikstrom. "The Atayur As a Pulley Leader rn the Council- Manager Form or Government: A Vin from the Field.` fLLLr Atmrniunnrrnn Rei'.ew 39 (May / lune 19791. 27t} -7d governments and may serve as a key participant in formulating agree- ments with state or federal officials. developers. and others who seak joint ventures with city. government. The mayor may also take the lead in projecting a favorable image of the city and seek to "sell" others on in- vestment in it. Types of leadership The kind of mayoral leadership an incumbent provides depends on which roles he performs and how well. Thc combinations of activities pursued by individual mayors is varied. but certain gentiral types are clear.' Mayors develop a leadership type for themselves by the way they combine the four dimensions of leadership. (See Table 2.) The mayor could invest so little in the office and define its scope so narrowly that he is simply a caretaker —a uniformly underdeveloped type of leadership. For most mayors, the presiding and ceremonial tasks are inescapable because they are legally required or inherent pans of the job. Mayors who perform no other roles may be called symbolic heads of their government. Such narrowly defined leadership wil not meet the needs of the modern governmental system. Although he serves as presiding of- ficer. ceremonial head. and spokesman. such a mayor makes no effort to unify the council members, keep them informed. communicate with the public. intervene between the council and manager, and so forth. As a consequence, the coun- c. likely to bc divided, confused. tt :tsorganized, and the manager's it ..uencc will expand. 4. A review of the literature and typology of rules in mayor - council and council-manager cities is presented In lames H Svara and lames W liuhmbach. The Mayoralty and tradership In Council - Manager Government." ftrtrulor Grn.rrnmenr 4 (Winter 1416). 1.4 If he does undertake the unifying. informing. communicating and in- tervening tasks. the manor becomes a coordinator. Pursuing these ac- tivities effectively is essential to a smoothly functioning council- manager government with strong elected leadership Council members do not always work together well; nor do the council. manager. and public necessarily in- teract smoothly. The coordinator is a team reader; he keeps the manager and council in touch and interacts with the public and outside agencies in order to improve communication. He helps to achieve high levels of shared information. But since he is weak in policy guidance. he con- tributes little to policy form. ttton (at least, no more than an .er member of the council.) Toe coor- dinator is not a "complete" type of leader. since the organizing and guidance roles arc not part of his repertoire. There are twu other incomplete types of leader. One of them has two variations —the activist and the reformer. This type emphasizes policy guidance and advocacy but neglects coordinative activities. especially team- building. The ac- tivist wants to get things ac- complished quickly and succeeds by force of his personality and the presence of a working majority on the council. Although influential. the activist is viewed by some members of the council perhaps even his own supporters, as abrasive and exclusionary in his leadership. The tenure of this type of mayor is marked by successful policy in- itiatives along with friction and disgruntlement among thc council members. The reformer launches noble campaigns that have little prospect of success because he has limited support on the council. The reformer is more concerned with enunciating ideas about what the ci- ty should do than working with thc council and maintaining coordina- tion. As a result, he is likely to be ineffective as a policy leader because he is isolated from, the rest of the council. Another incomplete form of leadership found occasionally is the mayor who specializes in promo- tion. The promoter role may be combined with any of the other types and is becoming increasingly important for all mayors. The mayor who is excessively involved in pro- motion. however, may devote so much time to traveling and selling the city that he gives little attention to other aspects of the job. This type of leader may be more suc- cessful at negotiating agreement among developers. financial institu- tions, and government agencies for a major project than he is at welding a majority within the coun- cil. Thc specialized promoter leaves a vacuum of responsibility for tasks involving coordination. organiza- tion, and policy guidance, and others must try to fill it. The director is a complete type of mayor who not only contributes to smooth functioning but also pro- vides a general sense of direction. A primary responsibility of the council is to determine the city government's mission and its broad goals. The director contributes significantly to consideration of broad questions of purpose. One mayor suggcstcd that "my toughest job was keeping the council's atten- tion on the horizon rather than on the potholes " This type of mayor stands out as a leader in the eyes of the council. the press, and the public. but he must use that recognition as a source of leverage rather than control. He can enhance the influence of elected of- ficials by unifying the council. fill- ing the policy vacuum that can exist on the council. and guiding policy toward goals that meet the com- munity's needs. Furthermore, he is actively involved in monitoring and adjusting relationships within city government to maintain balance, cooperation, and high standards. No one else can attack the causes of friction between the council and manager (which may bc produced by failings of either party) or pro- mote the constructive interaction that is needed for effective perfor- mance. This mayor does not usurp the manager's prerogatives or diminish his leadership. In fact. in the organizer role, the mayor seeks to enhance the manager's ability to function as the chief executive of- ficer. In sum. although the director does not become the driving force as thc executive mayor can bc, he is the guiding force in city government. Conclusion The council - manager form of government needs certain contribu- tions from the mayor in order to function smoothly. At a minimum, the mayor should accept the coor- dinator type of leadership in order to facilitate exchange of information among public, council, and staff and to help the council operate more effectively. This attention to the internal dynamics of city government and relationships with the public is crucial for complete leadership. If a mayor is to shape both the process and the direction of city government, he cannot ig- nore the coordinative dimension; he can achieve victories over the short run but may become an isolated reformer. The mayor who defines the job as simply symbolic leader- ship is ignoring many important roles that are needed for effective city government. Voters will have difficulty assess- ing whether a candidate has the qualities and intentions needed to be a good mayor for their city. In meetings with candidates, it is im- portant to find out how they con- ceive the office and how they would relate to other officials. Priorities and ideas about policy are impor- tant, because they are likely to be manifested in the intricate details of interaction handled by the mayor. It is also important to know how thc prospective mayor will work with others to accomplish his policy goals. The media should try to fins out how thc candidates perform as leaders in small groups. The perfor- mance of incumbents can be as- sessed against the checklist of roles outlined in Table 1. The standards for assessing performance must be grounded in the conditions of that community and in what kind of mayor the city needs. Given the am- biguous nature of the mayor's of- fice. these efforts by citizens to learn about candidates take on a special importance. In the process, voters not only assess the candidates but also help shape expectations for the office itself. For candidates and incumbents. it is time to abandon the notion that the mayor's office is "what one chooses to make of it. This oft - heard statement is misleading in two important respects. First, the ac- tivities of a good mayor are not matters of choice. The increasing demands on city governments mu that these governments need strong leadership from the mayor, at least as a coordinator and preferably as a director. If the mayor does not undertake these activities, a senous vacuum exists in council - manager government. Therefore, a good mayor must perform certain roles Second, the statement fosters thc misconception that mayors who seek to define the responsibilities of their post bmadly are on an "ego trip" They-could. it would seem, just as well "choose" to be the first among equals on the council rather than make a big deal of being the mayor. That posit:rn is not consis- tent with this study's analysis of leadership in the large North Carolina cities. The nature of the office in council- manager govern- ment requires that the mayor be prepared to accept certain respon- sibilities reflected in the ten roles. He does so not because of inflated self - esteem but because the positic calls for assumption of responsibili- ty. Indeed. the mayor who provides complete leadership has accepted restraints on his freedom and the obligation to be an invisible leader within the council as well as a public advocate. The same logic ap- plies to similar positions. such as the chairman or chairwoman of the county board of commissioners or the school board. Whoever occupies Reprinted with permission from the Fall 1985 issue of Popular Govmnmenr tnaRa- sine. publishes! by the Institute of Govern- ment. Univer sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill. North Carolina. W 1985. such offices should be expected to assert leadership across a wide range of roles and should not be faulted for doing so. In conclusion. the council - manager mayor can contribute substantially to the performance of his government and the betterment of his community, The position is not a pale imitation of the executive mares office in mayor- council city but rather a unique leadership posi- tion that requires distinctive qualities. Council - manager cities ask the mayor not to nun the shovw but to bring out the best in council and staff and to foster a common sense of purpose.