Results vs. Activity: Council And Staff Talk Past Each Other

Different expectations surface early
During the first of two strategic planning study sessions this year, early discussion revealed a disconnect between the Town Council and staff over how the strategic plan is framed and reported. Council members emphasized a desire for planning focused on clearly defined outcomes, while staff updates emphasize activities completed or in progress. 

Activity reporting vs. outcome reporting
Council cited economic development, referred to in the plan as economic vitality, as a clear example. Council members said their intent is to attract major employers, expand commercial development, and increase revenue in a meaningful way. Council wants to know what progress is being made toward specific, identifiable targets tied to those goals.  Staff updates, however, focus on activities such as supporting startup programs, hosting networking events, and developing collaboration spaces. While these efforts may support broader economic development, council members questioned whether they are directly connected to achieving the stated goals.

Council wants "measurable outcome reporting"
Council members said strategic plan items should be built around specific goals and measurable outcomes, with reporting that clearly shows whether progress is being made toward those outcomes or whether current efforts are realistically on track to achieve them. They said success should be judged by results, not by the volume of activity.

Staff wants to do activity reporting because that is what they track
In response to council thoughts, Town Manager Wilkins directed council members to existing documents, including the strategic plan and internal project charters, for additional detail. He emphasized that staff is taking actions, tracking work through multiple tools, and providing quarterly updates, while noting the challenge of consolidating that information into a single, easily digestible report.  

Wilkins’ missed Council’s central concern: Members were not asking for more detail about activities, but for clearer, bottom-line assurance that those activities are designed to produce the specific results Council expects.

Looking ahead to the next strategy session
Several council members summarized the issue succinctly: sSaff is focused on doing things, while Council wants confidence that the things being done are the right ones and will deliver the intended results. As the Town prepares for its second study session, members indicated that clearer outcome definitions up front would help align expectations and keep strategic planning results-driven rather than activity-driven.

- - -

Resident Needs, Fiscal Responsibility, and Community Growth Drive 2026–27 Council Strategic Plan

Council refines strategic plan for 2026–27

The Oro Valley Town Council reviewed a draft Strategic Plan for 2026–27 at its May 21 meeting. The plan, developed over several months with council and community input, focuses on 35 specific projects organized into seven key areas. This discussion of the plan is a follow up of the council's discussion of the plan in September as presented in two LOVE articles (link 1 and link 2). Council members used the session to recommend changes, clarify priorities, and ensure that the plan aligns with resident needs and available resources.

Economic vitality: Focus on retail and local business
The Council devoted considerable discussion to economic vitality, particularly the challenge of retail “leakage”—local dollars spent outside Oro Valley. Members suggested that the plan include projects to strengthen local shopping and attract more businesses. One council member summarized the intent: “I’d like to see a project that responds to that information, because it seems to me that we have an opportunity to try to reclaim some of that leakage and bring that back here to the Town of Oro Valley.” There was also agreement to use language like “enhance” or “advance” the local economic ecosystem rather than simply “create” it.

Culture and recreation: Prioritize residents needs and set realistic goals
Culture and recreation goals were widely supported, but council members debated the best way to ensure that parks and programming serve Oro Valley residents first. They discussed softening language—changing words like “ensure” to “focus on” or “promote”—to reflect budget realities. As one member noted, “We want to make sure that we have the ability and the resources to back up that commitment.” The Council decided to remove a planned project to enhance the Coronado K-8 School baseball facility, citing years of delays and lack of outside cooperation.

Public safety: Address future needs and improve security

Council members supported projects aimed at long-term police workforce planning and exploring new security measures for events and Town assets. One member requested a clearer approach to determining the number of new officers needed: “Criteria to plan for the need for additional officers, not of additional officers, seems to read better to me.” The Council agreed that workforce planning should be driven by objective criteria and community expectations.

Infrastructure and town assets: Prioritize projects and set realistic timelines
Discussion on infrastructure focused on the timeline for major projects, such as evaluating new police facilities and the use of Rooney Ranch property. Council members debated whether projects should have a one-year or two-year completion target, ultimately agreeing that some initiatives, like comprehensive facility planning, require a phased, multi-year approach. The Council moved to shift the Rooney Ranch evaluation to an earlier completion date after discussion.

Land use and design: Maintain strong zoning codes and protect community character

Council members expressed concern about unintended consequences of “modernizing” zoning codes and design standards. One said, “We shouldn’t be loosening our codes because our codes are the only thing that we have left… Once we give it, we can’t take it away.” The group agreed to clarify that updates to zoning codes should reflect “best practices” and not necessarily weaken existing standards.

Effective and efficient government: Collaborate regionally and streamline operations
The plan includes a project to identify opportunities for regional collaboration to reduce costs and improve efficiency, such as exploring shared contracts or coordinated public services with neighboring jurisdictions. Council members broadly supported this approach, with one noting that “regional partnerships can help us deliver better service while keeping expenses in check.” Alongside regional efforts, the Council also emphasized streamlining internal operations, investing in technology, and prioritizing staff training to ensure high service standards. Additional projects focus on improving public engagement, enhancing transparency, and strengthening organizational resilience (making the town better able to handle challenges, disruptions, or unexpected events), all aimed at providing responsive and efficient government for Oro Valley residents.

Financial stability: Rolling updates and fiscal caution
A new “rolling update” approach will allow the Town to revise the strategic plan each year, rather than waiting two years for a full rewrite. This model gives the Council flexibility to respond to new opportunities or financial challenges as they arise. Vice Mayor Barrett voiced a concern shared by many: “I’m a little bit concerned about the financial commitment that some of these things entail… We want to make sure that we have the ability and the resources to back up that commitment.”

Areas of contention: Balancing ambition with practicality
While the council showed broad agreement on the overall direction of the Strategic Plan, the council did not "rubber-stamp" the draft plan nor did they agree amoung themsevles on everything. As we've noted, there were several areas of contention emerged during the discussion. Council members debated how assertively the plan should address retail leakage, with differing views on the scope of related projects. There was also extensive discussion about the wording of guiding principles—some members urged caution against language that might overcommit the Town, leading to revisions that made goals more realistic. The feasibility of specific projects, such as improvements to the Coronado K-8 School baseball facility, was questioned, ultimately resulting in its removal from the plan. Debate also arose over whether modernizing zoning codes could inadvertently weaken development standards, with some members warning against loosening rules in light of recent state law changes. Finally, the council discussed the practicality of proposed timelines for major projects, adjusting deadlines to better fit resource realities. These resolution of these discussions reflect the ability of this council to work together.

Next steps: Edits and adoption
Staff will incorporate council feedback and bring the revised plan back for adoption. The annual update cycle means the plan can evolve along with Oro Valley’s needs and priorities. Council’s discussion emphasized balancing vision with practical implementation, and keeping resident needs at the center of town planning.

- - -

Staff Takes Control of Creating The Fiscal 2026 and 2027 Strategic Plan

Council forced to use "new" strategic planning process that limits their interaction
The Oro Valley Town Council’s special session on the 2026-2027 strategic plan last Thursday took an unexpected turn just 30 minutes in when the entire planning process came into question. Expecting an open forum discussion, council members were instead handed a draft plan—one created by consultant Mike Letcher of BridgeGroup, LLC. Letcher, who was previously fired as Tucson’s City Manager (Tucson Citizen, Tucson Sentinel), now presents himself as a strategic planning expert specializing in public sector work.

Planning process truncated without council consensus
Letcher, with the approval of Town Manager Wilkins and likely the agreement of Mayor Winfield, unilaterally changed the strategic planning process without council input. Previously, strategic planning involved several days of open council discussions where each department and issue was reviewed in depth. The process encouraged collaborative brainstorming, linking General Plan objectives to strategy discussions. This time, those open discussions were eliminated.

Attendees could not see the work

Consultant defends the change: It's just better
Letcher defended the process change, arguing that one-on-one meetings with council members provided a deeper understanding of project priorities than previous survey-based input. During these private meetings, council members were asked what they wanted included in the strategic plan, with no requirement to justify their choices. Letcher claimed that the new format—used in other cities—offered better structure by defining guiding principles and focus areas upfront. According to Letcher, presenting a full draft plan allowed council members to see the entire strategic landscape rather than building it piece by piece, making discussions more efficient. While acknowledging that the process was different from previous years, he maintained that it was designed to improve clarity and facilitate decision-making.

Council members push back: What happened to open discussion?
Several council members objected, frustrated that they were being presented with a nearly complete plan rather than collaboratively developing it. Councilmember Barrett pointed out that previous strategic planning allowed for open discussions over multiple days, creating opportunities for council collaboration before drafting the plan. She felt the new approach limited consensus-building and weakened engagement among council members. Others raised concerns that private meetings with the consultant and town staff prevented them from understanding each other's priorities. Some felt that the process restricted their ability to shape the plan organically, making it feel predetermined rather than collaborative.

Consultant and town manager dismiss concerns
Neither Letcher, Wilkins, nor Mayor Winfield acknowledged the validity of these concerns. Instead, Letcher simply defended the process as superior, implying that council members should accept it without debate. Wilkins was even more dismissive, comparing the one-on-one meetings with council members to an exercise in gathering sticky notes for a whiteboard. He stated: "We’ve kind of done a whiteboard exercise—getting all the projects up there. That process has been completed." However, what Wilkins called a "whiteboard" exercise turned out to be a prewritten draft plan, which council members were expected to spend five hours reviewing—formatted as a Microsoft Word document with a font too small to read. Meanwhile, while council members were denied a collaborative session, town staff had met in person to develop their contributions to the plan.

The town made it difficult for residents to attend or follow this meeting

This study session was a public meeting. However, the public notice was posted only a few days in advance, leaving little time for residents to prepare. Staff did not attach the document reviewed by the council to the agenda, nor did they provide copies to attendees. Attendees could barely see the document (Panel above). As a result, following the discussion in real time was nearly impossible. LOVE has submitted a public records request for these documents but has not received them as of this publication date.

Town staff now control the plan
This shift reduced council involvement and transferred strategic planning control to town staff. The six council members, including the two newly elected members, were not given the opportunity to openly share their views or build consensus. Additionally, residents interested in the process had no way to prepare for or easily follow the meeting.

How good will the 2026-2027 strategic plan be?
The council spent five hours reviewing a Microsoft Word document containing seven focus areas and 62 initiatives. The document included all council member suggestions gathered during one-on-one meetings and all staff recommendations from the staff’s in-person strategy session One April 2, the consultant will present a revised draft for council review. On April 16, staff will present the final draft for council approval
- - -

Oro Valley Town Council to Create 2025-2027 Strategic Plan

Oro Valley Town Council to discuss new strategic plan
The Oro Valley Town Council will hold a study session tomorrow to discuss projects, strategies, and guiding principles for the Strategic Plan for the upcoming two fiscal years (2025-2027). The current Strategic Plan covers this fiscal year (2024-2025) and the last fiscal year (2023-2024), meaning the Council must now develop a new plan for the next two fiscal years. The Strategic Plan is a significant document as it shapes budget priorities and guides long-term initiatives.

A current example: Trails Master Plan
Two years ago, the Council agreed to a plan that, among other things, called for "Creating a Trails Plan" focused on multi-use paths, natural surfaces, paved surfaces, access, connectivity, maintenance, mapping, promotions, and signage. [panel right] In November 2024, staff initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a consultant to lead this effort. The RFP stated a budget of $50,000, an amount that should be in this year’s budget, though it has not been clearly identified.

The strategic plan is not the general plan
The General Plan is a voter-ratified document that outlines the town’s long-term vision for a 10-year period. The town is currently working on a new General Plan, OV Path Forward, which will take effect in 2026.

It is a council and staff interpretation of resident intent
The Strategic Plan, on the other hand, is a Council-approved document developed by town staff and reviewed by the Town Council. Unlike the General Plan, which is shaped by voter input, the Strategic Plan reflects a staff and council interpretation of the General Plan, setting the priorities for staff actions and activities. It matters even more than the General Plan because, unlike the broad statements in the General Plan, the Strategic Plan determines specific actions to be taken.

The translation from General Plan directives to Strategic Plan actions a open to wide interpretation
Over the years, LOVE has reported on the town’s Strategic Plans, and some residents have raised concerns about the process. These concerns include:

• The Strategic Plan is shaped by town staff and the Council, which may lead to misalignment with residents’ priorities.
• Staff controls the narrative, possibly selectively presenting information to the Town Council, resulting in a focus on growth that primarily benefits staff initiatives rather than community-driven needs.
• The 2016 General Plan is still the guiding document for the Strategic Plan, since the 2026 General Plan has not yet been adopted. Some fear that the 2016 plan may be dismissed as outdated to justify new priorities that may not reflect resident approved long-term vision.

It is up to the council to get this right
Ultimately, it is up to the Town Council, not town staff, to ensure that the Strategic Plan aligns with the community’s vision. It is our hope that each of the seven Council members will challenge staff as needed to ensure that resident priorities remain at the forefront.

- - -