1 City of
Sunnyvale
Study Issues Process Discussion
City Council Study Session
August 26, 2025
From
Raftelis
2 • 30+ years of local
government and
consulting experience
• Former Finance Director
and Budget Manager
REBEKKA
HOSKEN
• 40+ years of local
government and
consulting experience
• Former City Manager in
two cities
• Recognized thought
leader and facilitator
JAN
PERKINS
Today’s
Objectives
3 Review analysis, preliminary
observations and strategies for
improvement
Receive City Council feedback
Agenda
5:40 – 6:05 p.m. Raftelis Presentation
6:05 – 6:15 p.m. Council Question #1
6:15 – 6:25 p.m. Council Question #2
6:25 – 6:35 p.m. Council Question #3
6:35 – 7:00 p.m. Public Comment/Discussion
5 Project Objectives
and Background
Project Objective
Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the City’s
longstanding study issues process to develop
recommendations that lead to the most efficient and
effective approach to identify, prioritize, and analyze policy priorities.
Project Background
Study Issue OCM 24-02:
Evaluate the City of Sunnyvale Study Issues Process
Goals of Our
Recommendations
Simplify
Retain
Council
authority to
set top
priorities
Retain
Board and
Commission
input
To Save Time for
Everyone Involved
7 8
Project
Methodology
City Council and Staff Interviews
Our
Approach
9 Online Surveys of Board and
Commission Members and City Staff
Case Study Cities and Best Practices
Data and Process Analysis
Key Themes from Information and Analysis
• Main theme from interviews and surveys
was, “Change It But Don’t Eliminate a
Way to Prioritize”
• Councilmembers’ key concern is the
length of time for the process overall
(from sponsorship to study completion)
• Study issues are part of a larger system
but treated as separate
• Some items now proposed for study
issues are within the City Manager’s or
City Attorney’s purview to determine action
and may not need routing through the
formal prioritization process
• Case study cities have disciplined ways
of setting priorities that are less
complicated
• Councilmembers like having a way to
prioritize ideas
• Staff’s key concerns are the amount of
time devoted to the process and impact
on delivery of core services
• Boards and Commissions want to have
input, but agree the process is overly
complex
• Study issues process is time consuming
and expensive, and detracts from
service and project delivery
10 11
Data and Process
Analysis
Study Issues Proposals Process
12 On average, over the past 10
years, only 26.73% of study
issues brought to the February
Workshop are approved for
implementation (“Above The
Line”), an average of 8 or less
per year
Conversely, 73.27% of time is spent
on proposals that are not approved.
Staff time could be better spent on
implementation.
26.73%
73.27%
Above The Line Below The Line
Other Key Findings
13 •The vast majority of study issues brought to workshop (72.1%) are assigned to Public Works and Community Development
•Over the past five years, four boards and commissions (PRC, SC, BPAC, and PC) sponsored the majority of study issues (57.9%), but most are not ranked highly by Council
•Of proposed study issues that are ranked Above the Line,
78.9% also require a budget supplement/request (41 of 52) Proposal Process is Expensive in Time and Money
14 • The study issues proposal process uses substantial City resources • Based upon Raftelis’ review of seven study issues, proposals process takes an average of 20 months
• The City is estimated to be spending over 2,500 hours per year, or 64 weeks of staff time, on the study issues proposal process from sponsorship to funding
› This is staff time that could be spent on implementation › Equivalent to 1.2 FTEs of time
• The City is estimated to be spending over $347,000 annually in staff time on the study issues proposal process (prior to approval)
Study Issues Implementation Timeline
Observations
Timelines vary widely for
implementation depending upon
nature of each study issue
• Proposal process drivers:
• Time on deferral list
• Implementation process drivers:
• Consultant procurement (4-6 months)
• External entities (e.g., Caltrans)
• Public outreach processes
• Staff vacancies
Study issues timeline starts and is
titled by year of first workshop and
not from actual approval
• Leads to false narratives on how
long the process takes
• Leads to expectations for people
who think proposed study issues will
happen—but they are not on staff’s
work plan
15 City Staff’s Implementation Timeline Data
• Office of City Manager began
tracking start/completion data in
2020
• Based upon 44 study issues
tracked, average days from
funding to completion is 762.79,
or just over two years
16 Dept. No. of
Study
Issues
Average
Days
Funded to
Completion
CDD 12 983.55
DPS 1 484.00
DPW 11 1005.55
ESD 4 690.25
FIN 2 377.50
HRD 1 1086.00
ITD 1 1027.00
LRS 5 475.20
OCM 7 347.29
TOTAL 44 762.79
17 Case Study Cities
Best Practices
Case Study Cities
•Elk Grove
•Fremont
•Gilroy
•Pleasanton
•Redwood City
•Rohnert Park
•San Mateo
•Victorville
18 Discipline
Focus
Themes from Case Study Cities
Disciplined, streamlined process that is adhered to – multi-year basis – but ideas are not formally deferred or carried over to next prioritization cycle No involvement of boards and commissions in Council priority setting Alignment with a strategic plan or adopted goals and priorities Set priorities with respect for ongoing work of departments; understand that day- to-day operations must be well managed – and that takes time Process for issues to be raised at Council meetings, but used sparingly, with discussions with City Manager about impact on workload
Majority Council vote to add items
19 Key Differences Between Case Study Cities
and Sunnyvale
Case study cities have
methods for Council to set
priorities—but not as
time-consuming or
complex as Sunnyvale’s
None of the cities invite
Boards and Commissions
to propose projects for staff
20 Best Practices Regarding Roles
Council
• Set policy
• Adopt budget
• Appoint City Manager
and City Attorney
• Stay connected with
community concerns
City Manager
• Manage operations
• Appoint and
supervise staff
• Recommend policy
• Recommend budget
Boards and
Commissions
• Carry out designated
assignments
• Policy advice to City
Council in specific
areas – mechanism
to identify is in annual
B/C Work Plans that
Council approves
21 For Success – Case Study Cities Minimize Adding New Projects During the Year and Follow These Steps
22 Focus
• Do not take staff time
away from
established priorities
and work plans that
support those
priorities
Full Council
Support
• Once decisions are
made, support them
and the
implementation
involved
Choices
• What drops off or is
delayed if something
is added?
Best
Practice
Criteria
for Adding
Projects
Mid-Year
23 Emergency
(natural disaster,
pandemic, civil
unrest)
New outside
funding
opportunity that is
time sensitive
New multi-agency
opportunity that
cannot be delayed
Community safety
issue that must be
addressed in near
term
Changes in laws
or mandates
24 Preliminary Strategies
for Improvement
Context
25 Study Issues
are Part of the
Larger System
but Treated as
Separate
Observations
1) Cost of study issue proposal process is
high—time spent could be used
implementing priorities
2) Significant time is spent by staff in
meetings and report writing on
proposals that do not get approved
3) Board and Commission process is
unique and time-consuming— atypical
role
4) Study issues are part of larger context
but treated separately
5) Expectations raised that proposals will
ultimately be implemented—not
necessarily so
6) Terminology is confusing (are issues
just being “studied”?)
7) Tracking and visibility could be
easier and better
8) No need for two forms
9) Some proposed items can be
handled by the City Manager or City
Attorney
10) Strategic Priorities should be
reviewed every two years
11) Major pieces are in place for a
comprehensive Strategic Plan
26 14 Strategies for
Improvement
Three Categories
A. Study Issues Proposal Process
B. Process to Complete Study
Issues
C. Related Prioritization and
Resourcing Processes
27 Strategies for Improvement:
Study Issues Proposal Process
28 A. Study Issues Proposals Process
1 Eliminate most study issue papers pertaining to the study issues proposal process 2 Review the board and commission input process
3 Eliminate the January public hearing on potential Council study issues and budget proposals 4 Expand the focus of the February Council workshop to incorporate a review of key projects 5 Modify terminology for clarity
6 Eliminate any deferral of study issues
7 Create one consolidated, brief form for study issues and budget proposals to be submitted in January
8 Prepare a clear description of the new Council Priority Projects that are recommended in the budget, for review and approval by the City Council
Strategies for Improvement:
Process to Complete Study Issues
29 B. Process to Complete Study Issues
9 Establish a transparent and informative reporting dashboard 10 Provide targeted project update discussions with the Council on an as-needed basis
11 Identify key tasks or phases that would be value-added for tracking staff time Strategies for Improvement:
Related Prioritization and Resourcing Processes
30 C. Related Prioritization and Resourcing Processes
12 Conduct a biennial review of the Council’s Strategic Priorities 13 Create a comprehensive Strategic Plan
14 Apply an agreed-upon set of criteria for adding projects mid-year Current New
Suggested Terminology Changes
For Clarity
• Study Issue
• Strategic Priorities
• Above the line/below the line
Council Priority Projects
Strategic Goals
Delete – replace with City Manager’s
recommendation for items to be
included in the budget
31 Review existing major projects
City Manager to provide financial
update and guidance on capacity for
Council and staff to take on new
projects
Reframe the
February
Workshop
32 1
2 3
4 Review the new proposals for Council
Priority Project (formerly study issues)
to be considered
Staff would prepare reports on subset
5 City Manager utilizes that information
for his recommendations for the
budget (returns to May workshop)
Review the Strategic Priorities
only every two years to see if
conditions have changed
Board and Commission Input Option #1
Individual Ideas are Shared by Board and Commission
Members to City Council
33 • No form filled out by Board and Commission members • Board and Commission members, as well as members of the public, could suggest ideas individually to Councilmembers to put forward in February, consistent with other cities’ practices
• No discussion or ranking at advisory body meetings
• Councilmembers would determine whether to create proposals from the suggestions • Each Councilmember would be able to submit up to three (3) proposals individually each year in advance of the February Workshop • A maximum total of 21 proposals for review at the February Workshop Under either option, no ranking of proposals by boards and commissions Board and Commission Input Option #2
Each Board or Commission Makes One Submittal Per Year
34 • By end of December, the advisory body would determine (by majority vote) if it would like to suggest one issue to move forward to the February Workshop • Staff would write a one to two paragraph description of the proposal for Council discussion at the February Workshop
• Up to a total of 10 proposals could be submitted each year from Boards and Commissions
• The number of proposals submitted by each Councilmember would be limited to two each year
• A maximum total of 24 proposals to review at the February Workshop Under either option, no ranking of proposals by Boards and Commissions Summary of Proposed Revised Process
1. One form (combined “Council Priority Project” proposal/budget proposal) submitted by Council members for 2-3 study issues in January
2. Submitted form would be reviewed by the City Manager to determine whether the desired project could be incorporated into City operations in some other way (“just do it”) January public hearing eliminated
3. February Workshop retained
4. Staff would prepare reports on the agreed-upon subset of study issues (“Council Priority Projects”) with majority Council support after the February Workshop
5. City Manager’s recommendations on what is able to be added to the budget and workplan retained and presented at Budget Workshop in May
6. Final determination of “Council Priority Projects” made with budget adoption in June; nothing is deferred
7. City Manager’s Office responsible for tracking progress and providing status updates to Council
35 Summary of Proposed Revised Process
36 February
Workshop
Questions for City
Council
• What did you hear from the case study cities that can be applied here?
• Does Option 1 or Option 2 strike the best balance
between obtaining Board and Commission input and
simplifying the process?
• What strategies for improvement do you think will work well? What do you have concerns about?
Next Steps
•Prepare report, incorporating Council input
•Present to City Council on October 21
Contact:
Jan Perkins [email protected]
Rebekka Hosken [email protected]
39 Thank you!