Item No. 14
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 14, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Phil White, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Strategic Plan — Alternative Options and Request for Direction RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Provide direction on how to proceed with developing the City's strategic plan; and
2. Consider expanding the role of the Measure S Oversight Committee to support this effort.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
In January 2025, the City Council adopted goals for the year. One goal was to create a strategic plan.
On March 24, staff brought an item to the Council recommending the release of an RFP for a consultant to lead the planning process. The estimated cost would be about $100,000, and the process would take around 12 months. The Council gave staff the go-ahead to move forward with this approach.
A strategic plan outlines a long-term vision and sets goals and strategies to meet that vision. It ensures resources are aligned to address priorities. Key elements include:
• Vision: The desired future of Yucaipa
• Mission: How the community will achieve that future
• Values: Core principles guiding our actions
• Goals: Broad, long-term aims
• Objectives: Measurable steps toward goals
• Strategies: Ways to meet objectives
• Action Plans: Timelines and steps for moving forward
These plans can cover areas like economic development, parks, public safety, and more. A long range financial plan can be a component of a strategic plan to align the use of resources with the objective.
They help guide decisions, plan for future costs, and ensure consistency in City direction.
During that March 24th discussion, some Council Members asked if staff could lead the effort instead.
At the time, staff believed we didn't have the internal expertise. After further review, we believe we do. However, an internal process may carry risks like bias and public concern about transparency.
Now, we are coming back to the Council with three clear options and one idea for additional public involvement.
Option 1: Consultant -Led
A hired consultant would lead the entire planning process.
Pros:
• Less bias; offers an outside view
• No extra burden on City staff
Cons:
• Higher cost
• May still be seen as biased since the City is paying for it Option 2: Staff -Led
City staff would run the planning process.
Pros:
• Lower cost (uses current staff)
• Staff know City operations well
Cons:
• Staff may be biased about their own work
• Political influence may steer results
• May not be seen as transparent and could reduce trust • Would draw staff away from daily tasks
Option 3: Hybrid Approach (Staff + Consultant)
A mix of consultant and staff efforts. Consultant would lead parts of the project, and staff would assist where needed. Staff would issue a reduced scope RFP for a smaller consultant role.
Pros:
• Lower cost than full consultant -led
• Brings both internal knowledge and outside perspective • Staff and community stay engaged through the process
Cons:
• Requires clear boundaries to manage bias
• Will still need staff time and effort reducing availability for daily tasks
Involving the Measure S Oversight Committee
The Measure S Committee (Committee) is currently designed to oversee how those specific funds are spent. Staff believes the Committee could take on a broader role by helping evaluate all City operations. The Committee would also act as a conduit for community ideas. This would provide an added layer of outside input and increase public trust.
If the City Council agrees, the Committee could help shape the strategic plan by working with the public, staff, and a consultant. The result would be a draft plan for the City Council to consider.
Options Comparison
Option
Cost
Bias Risk
Public
Trust
Staff
Burden
Community
Input
Staff
Knowledge
Consultant-
Led
High
Medium
Medium
Low
High
Low
Staff -Led
Low
High
Low
High
Moderate
High
Hybrid
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Very High
High
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Option 3: Hybrid Approach with Measure S Committee involvement.
This approach saves money, brings in different viewpoints, and builds public trust. It also keeps staff involved in the process while allowing for outside support where needed. Staff is recommending this option as the most likely to result in the highest quality and the most community trusted outcome.
Request for Direction
• Does the Council support expanding the Measure S Committee's role to assist with the strategic planning process?
• Which of the three options —Consultant -led, Staff -led, or Hybrid —does the Council prefer? FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact depends on the direction given. Additional detail on the fiscal impact will be provided at the conclusion of the RFP process.
Approved by:
ecc,