At its March 19 meeting, the Archuleta County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) selected Civic Possible as the consultant to create the county’s strategic plan.
The selection followed presentations by five finalists at the March 12 BoCC work session.
The first presentation at the work session was by Civic Possible, represented by Jason Schneider.
Schneider highlighted Civic Possible’s experience working in rural communities and focus on the qualitative elements of strategic planning.
He stated that the company understands the mechanics behind developing community agreement.
The planning process, Schneider explained, would begin with work to understand the county’s position in the community before working on co-designing the plan with county staff and performing outreach in the community.
He indicated that, once the plan is completed, Civic Possible will put in place monitoring and coach staff on implementing the plan.
He commented that the company works to avoid plans “sitting on shelves” and puts in place metrics for plan performance, as well as providing assistance and annual reviews.
Commissioner Ronnie Maez noted that the county is aware of its lack of funds for projects and asked Schneider, “How can you guys tell us what we don’t already know?”
He answered that Civic Possible focuses on uncovering insights from experts in the community, noting that many communities assume what people know and that residents may have greater knowledge than expected.
He acknowledged that power dynamics and the political landscape can limit what solutions are available and commented that Civic Possible sees itself as a facilitator for community-based solutions and not as the primary planners responsible for devising the plan.
Commissioner Warren Brown commented that community engagement is important to the strategic planning process and asked how much of the engagement would be in-person and online.
Schneider explained that the planning process would include three weeks of in-person work by the company, one-on-one interviews and community listening sessions primarily conducted in person.
He added that, following these community engagement events, there would be follow-up planning sessions with county leadership and then public listening sessions to review the draft plant.
Brown asked if Civic Possible has staff that speak Spanish.
Schneider commented that the company does not and typically uses local consultants who can speak Spanish and broaden the team’s language proficiencies.
Brown then asked how long the strategic plan would be for.
Schneider explained that this would be determined by the county commissioners and staff, but that he would recommend three years for a plan with specific steps and five years for a vision document.
Maez asked how the company will manage its community outreach plan.
Schneider stated that the company will use county leadership to find community leaders to conduct interviews with in addition to finding other viewpoints in the community.
County Manager Derek Woodman asked Schneider about Civic Possible’s success in working with other stakeholders and local governments to develop and implement strategic plans.
Schneider explained that the company focuses on getting stakeholders from multiple organizations to work together and builds its planning around the multiple organizations, including attempting to build buy-in from these organizations early in the process.
Schneider then asked why the county is working on creating a strategic plan now.
Commissioner Veronica Medina stated that the county previously had a strategic plan, but it was not used, and that the county is trying to update it due the number of events occurring in the community.
Brown asked how often the company comes in at budget for its projects.
Schneider stated that the company charges a flat fee and does not charge extra for additional work, although the contract and costs could be altered if the scope of work is changed.
The second presentation was from Future iQ, represented by David Buerle.
Buerle commented that the county is in a “fascinating point of change” and that Future iQ would work with the county to determine potential future trajectories for the county and an ideal future path for the county, as well as what steps will be needed to achieve it.
He added that the company would also work to facilitate deeper conversations about change in the community.
Medina asked where an online project portal containing information on the plan’s development that was referenced in Future iQ’s proposal would be located.
Buerle indicated that there are several options for how this portal could be managed, including the portal being managed by the company with links to it on the county website.
He added that the portal helps community members follow the planning process and engage with it and, following Medina voicing concerns about the amount of time county staff are currently investing in addressing American Disabilities Act accessibility on the county website, stated that Future iQ could run the portal, which would be branded similarly to the county website.
Medina asked what the timeline for a community survey proposed by Future iQ would be, what questions would be included and what the return rate would likely be.
Buerle explained that the formatting of the survey could be determined early in the planning process, but the company often uses longer surveys that take 10 to 15 minutes to complete and ask “quite thoughtful questions” about change and the trajectory of the community.
He commented that these surveys typically have a 75 to 80 percent rate of completion among those who begin the survey and often garner 700 to 1,000 responses in communities of 10,000 to 20,000 people.
Buerle added that these surveys typically run for about a month and that the company attempts to leverage survey participants to spread word about the survey.
He also stated that the company attempts to get enough survey responses to have statistically representative and defensible results.
Maez asked if the survey could determine whether respondents are full- or part-time residents, with Bruele indicating it could include profiling questions and be filtered based on them.
Maez commented that people moving into the community change the community, and Bruele added that the county might want to understand the nature and forces driving these changes.
Brown asked if the stakeholder interviews that the company plans to conduct would be conducted in person.
Buerle explained that the company prefers to do as much of the strategic planning process as possible in person, including interviews.
Brown also asked what length of strategic plan the company would aim to create and if anyone in the company speaks Spanish.
Buerle responded that the county would set the timeframe for the plan, but he would recommend a longer planning period.
He added that the company does not have any Spanish speakers, but does have translation capabilities and would work with interpreters and local community organizations who can assist with translation.
Brown also asked if the rate quoted by Future iQ would be a flat rate if no change orders are made, which Buerle confirmed.
Maez inquired how Future iQ could tell the county information it does not already know.
Buerle commented the commissioners already understand the community, but that outside voices can help facilitate deeper conversations and uncover local needs.
He also stated that Future iQ has experience managing community dialogues, developing ways to understand future trends and community perspectives, and experience building alignment between organizations and stakeholders.
Woodman asked Buerle about the company’s ability to collaborate with a variety of community stakeholders.
Buerle responded that Future iQ has succeeded in doing this, and that early outreach and community interviews are key for building support.
The board then heard a presentation from Stratalysts, represented by Shannon Flowers.
Flowers highlighted her and her staff’s background in local government and their desire to create strategic plans that lead to actionable results.
She explained that the first phase of the proposed planning process would involve creating a work plan and a six-month timeline, while phase two would include distributing surveys to county staff and community members and creating a report on the current environment and desires for the future.
She added that there would also be an orientation session for county staff to help set expectations for the plan.
A fourth phase would follow, Flowers explained, involving the creation of a strategic plan facilitated through a three-day planning event involving county staff, commissioners and community members.
She explained that the final stage of the planning process would be identifying obstacles to the plans and strategies to address them, as well as providing implementation support and assistance.
In response to questions from the commissioners, Flowers stated that the company could use surveys to distinguish between short-term and long-term residents, that she would recommend a five-year strategic plan, and that the company prefers to conduct interviews and events in person but also has virtual capabilities.
She also indicated that she speaks fluent Spanish and that the company has experience contacting minority populations.
Woodman then asked about the company’s success in working with a range of stakeholders, which Flowers responded the company is very successful at doing.
Woodman also asked about the costs of creating and implementing the plan.
Flowers stated that the cost for creating the plan would be $55,000, which would include six to eight weeks of implementation support.
Next, the commissioners heard a presentation from Better City, represented by Eric Gibson and Trina Kittleson.
Kittleson explained that the strategic planning process would involve identifying needs and objectives for the project; conducting research and analysis of previous data; performing stakeholder engagement activities like interviews, focus groups and public surveys; and building a strategic plan based on this information, including clear implementation steps.
Maez asked how the company would help the county learn things it does not already know.
Gibson highlighted the company’s collaborative approach and ability to ask questions that may not be obvious to local organizations as key assets in providing valuable insights for the plan.
He also noted the company’s experience with implementation and the variety of approaches to planning it could take.
Brown asked how stakeholder engagement would be conducted.
Kittleson stated that community engagement would be mostly done digitally, although the company will do some in-person focus groups.
Brown asked if company staff speak Spanish, which Kittleson and Gibson indicated they do and that they can do focus groups and outreach in Spanish.
Medina asked if the company could include more in-person meetings.
Kittleson stated that this could be done, but that might require additional travel fees.
Maez asked if the surveys the company would conduct could differentiate between full- and part-time residents.
Gibson indicated that they could and that there are a variety of ways that this could be done.
Medina also asked how the company determines survey questions, with Gibson explaining they are determined through collaboration with the county and meetings with the commissioners.
Woodman then asked about the company’s experience working with a variety of stakeholders.
Gibson explained that the company has prior experience working on plans with a wide variety of stakeholders and tries to involve stakeholders in key questions and tasks.
He concluded by highlighting the data dashboard that Better City would create as part of the planning process, which he stated presents data to the community and helps further understanding of the planning project.
The BoCC then heard a final presentation from Steady State Impact Strategies, represented by Garrett Landry.
Landry explained that the company has a range of experience and focuses on building “pragmatic” plans that can be easily implemented and include clear metrics and targets.
He stated that the planning process would be data-driven and would involve looking at real-time community and economic data, conducting stakeholder interviews, and surveying the community with a range of questions to better understand community sentiments.
In response to questions from the BoCC, Landry explained that these surveys could differentiate between residents and nonresidents, that the company prefers to conduct community meetings and stakeholder interviews in person, and that it has the capacity to communicate in Spanish through hired contractors.
In response to a question from Woodman concerning the company’s capacity to work with varied stakeholders, Landry stated that the company has wide experience with such work and considers it a core part of the planning process.
He also stated Steady State aims to create plans that can be implemented without further support from the company.
Following the presentations, Maez commented that all the presentations were high-quality, but that he preferred Steady State and Stratalysts.
Brown commented that he preferred Civic Possible and Steady State.
Medina commented that she felt Civic Possible was the correct choice, pointing out its implementation assistance.
Maez stated that he liked Stratalysts for its experience in local governments, involvement in the area and Spanish-speaking capability.
Medina then directed staff to put Steady State, Stratalysts and Civic Possible on the agenda of the next BoCC meeting for the board to pick a strategic consulting contractor.
At the March 19 meeting, the commissioners voted to select a consultant.
Brown expressed a preference for Civic Possible due to its implementation support.
Finance Director Chad Eaton stated that Civic Possible’s bid was at $74,250, Stratalysts’ bid was at $55,864 but an additional year of followup would cost $19,348 for a total cost of $75,213, and Steady State’s bid was $62,500 but a year of implementation follow up would range from $36,000 to $46,000.
Medina commented that the cost of Steady State would eliminate it from contention.
Maez stated that he preferred Stratalysts due to the company “sharing a lot more common interest with this board” than Civic Possible.
“I think they expressed to me a better understanding of Archuleta County than what Civic did,” Maez said. “That’s my reasoning for it.”
Medina commented that she was concerned that Stratalysts appeared to be focused on creating a plan that the county could implement without assistance and that she was unsure what form its additional assistance would take.
She added that she wondered if Stratalysts might not be strong at assisting with implementation.
Maez commented that the company has a “proven record” with other counties.
Brown stated that all of the companies could have done a suitable job, but that he felt Civic Possible “seemed to have the whole package planned out and it was a shovel-ready program from beginning to end.”
He added that also felt Civic Possible had a superior presentation.
Medina commented that Civic Possible was her No. 1 choice and “I didn’t really have a No. 2.”
Brown then moved to select Civic Possible as the consultant to create the county strategic plan, which Medina seconded.
The motion then passed with Medina and Brown voting in support and Maez voting against.
josh@pagosasun.com
