Clawson workshop refines five city goals and starts prioritizing 40 objectives for staff

A facilitated workshop of Clawson elected officials on March 19 focused on tightening the wording of five broad city goals and narrowing roughly 40 supporting objectives into a shorter list for staff to pursue and measure over the next one to two years. The session emphasized council-level strategic direction while giving staff a clear list of priority tasks.

The facilitator opened the evening by describing the division of responsibilities between elected officials and staff and urging the council to concentrate on high-level purpose and priorities. “We’re gonna put the objectives into 3 categories,” the facilitator said, explaining the exercise that would leave administration with around 15–20 priority items to track.

Council members spent much of the meeting word‑smithing Goal 1, which centers on identity and community. Several members proposed alternatives — including “preserve community identity,” “grow community identity,” and the metaphor “fabric of the community” — before many settled behind wording framed as “deepen and enrich the sense of community and identity of the city.” A council member who focused on downtown and land‑use matters urged that the goal align arts, housing and business development to bring long‑term vibrancy to the core.

Goal 2 prompted debate over how to capture two‑way engagement and accuracy of information. Members discussed options such as “engage and inform,” “foster,” and “cultivate an engaged, well‑informed community,” with several council members arguing the goal should reflect responsiveness and accurate channels for public communication.

On internal government functions (Goal 3) the facilitator framed the item as inward‑facing — emphasizing employee culture, succession planning and training — and council members proposed language that would attract and retain quality employees and elected officials while building clear systems and accountability.

For Goal 4, members aimed to capture fiscal prudence, technology and partnerships; suggested phrasings included “provide an efficient, adaptable, proactive and transparent government for stakeholders.” On Goal 5, participants discussed whether the heading “infrastructure” was right and landed on language stressing public infrastructure as a means to a safe, sustainable community — with examples like reliable pipes, roads and drainage called out as core elements.

After revising goal language, the council carried out a hands‑on prioritization exercise in small groups. The facilitator instructed members to sort objectives into three piles — highest priority, important but not immediate, and lower priority — and to target 3–4 priority items per goal so staff would have a focused work plan. During group work, members combined overlapping items (for example, code/ordinance changes tied to housing and lighting) and flagged the need for clearer systems to collect performance data before measurable targets can be set.

“There are 40 objectives; the administration can’t reasonably deliver all of them at once,” the facilitator said, urging the council to accept a smaller set of near‑term priorities for reporting and budgeting purposes. The facilitator committed to delivering a refined document to the city manager and to assisting staff in developing measurables for the selected priority objectives. Council members also noted that the prioritized goals and objectives typically move into the budget process for adoption and ongoing progress reporting.

The workshop concluded with group summaries of the agreed‑upon high‑priority items and a plan for staff follow‑up; no formal council votes were held at the session. The facilitator and council thanked participants and closed the meeting.

The next step is for city staff to convert the council’s prioritized objectives into specific, measurable indicators and timelines and to return a draft for council review and possible formal adoption.