Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Strategic Priorities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westminster council workshop produces prioritized project list; revenue identified as pivotal
Summary
At a half-day workshop, Westminster City councilors and staff brainstormed and narrowed a long list of projects into a shorter set of priorities, repeatedly flagging additional revenue (taxes/fees/grants) as a prerequisite for many items. Staff will draft a resolution presenting the priorities at the March council meeting.
Westminster City councilors and staff gathered for a facilitated workshop to generate and prioritize possible projects and policy priorities, producing a consolidated list the group said staff will turn into a resolution for the council to consider at its March meeting.
The session’s facilitator stressed open brainstorming and told attendees, “There are no good or bad ideas here,” as councilors and staff listed and combined proposals that ranged from public-safety staffing and competitive pay to downtown improvements, recreation facilities and transportation options.
The exercise narrowed an initial set of roughly 30–40 suggestions down to about seven top priorities, with several councilors and staff repeatedly stressing that increased revenue — discussed as “increased taxes,” utility-fee adjustments and pursuit of grants and county funding — would be required to implement many of the items.
Councilors identified public-safety staffing and officer safety (including pay, equipment and training), continued work on the downtown master plan, the Horton ballfield project and Anderson Park programming as recurring priorities. Recreation department staffing, a first-responder training facility, and finding uses for underused city property such as the “LA Building” also appeared on the prioritized list. A public-transportation concept (a trolley/van system) and a regional trail similar to Greenville’s Swamp Rabbit Trail were mentioned as longer-range, collaborative projects.
Staff and councilors discussed implementation steps and dependencies during the exercise. Several participants noted that pursuing grants frequently requires local match funds. One council member said grant funding is “good, but when you got a match on amount that money” it constrains what the city can afford; staff and others therefore emphasized revenue options that could act as a precursor to multiple projects. The facilitator and several councilors repeatedly returned to the point that item 27 on the working list — labeled during the session as a revenue-generation item — was “pivotal” to advancing many other priorities.
Workshop participants used a simple voting method: each councilor privately selected six priorities from the consolidated list to indicate short-term focus. The facilitator and staff then grouped and color-coded items to show which proposals required new revenue and which could proceed within existing plans. Council members asked staff to prepare clearer language and implementation notes so the priorities could be communicated consistently to the public and be included in a formal document.
Kevin (staff member) told the group he and other staff would “clean this up in an attachment format for that resolution for you guys to adopt at your March council meeting” and circulate the draft for review.
No policy or budget decisions were adopted during the workshop. The session ended with a procedural motion to adjourn that was seconded and carried by voice vote.
Looking ahead, staff told councilors they will refine the prioritized list, add implementation and funding notes (including dependencies on grants, county contributions and utility-fee or tax changes), and prepare a resolution for formal consideration at the March council meeting.
