The Pentwater Village Council met Monday, July 28, at 6 p.m. with the Steering Committee for Strategic Planning. Council members Don Palmer, David Bluhm, Jarod Griffis, Kathy O’Connor and Mary Marshall were present; members Carl Schrumpf and Dan Nugent were absent. The meeting had one purpose: to review and discuss the results of the community survey regarding the village’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis). Responses were grouped by those who took the survey online (143) and those who responded in person through interviews or public forums (71).
The Steering Committee had met earlier in the day with Chet Janik, hired consultant from the Michigan Leadership Institute, to look at responses and draft a possible vision statement and mission statement on which to base a strategic plan. Steering Committee members Joe Roberson, Dean Gustafson and Amy LaBarge were present at the council meeting; members Kyle Jansen and Niki Breazeale were absent. Prior to the evening discussion, Council President Marshall emphasized that the survey provided an external point of view to be considered in formulating the Strategic Plan. Council members’ responses would provide an internal point of view, which could differ in some areas from the external views because of council’s more intimate knowledge of the governing aspects of the village. Both views would be important to the formation of the Strategic Plan.
Janik laid the groundwork for the discussion by summarizing the 214 survey responses by listing the top five responses in each category from the online replies and the in-person replies. There was significant uniformity in the replies from both groups and conformity with results from several other surveys conducted over the past 10-12 years. Strengths focused on a strong sense of community, the natural beauty of the area and the commitment to and opportunities for volunteerism. Weaknesses called out were: a lack of affordable housing for young families and too many short-term rentals; lack of a defined plan for infrastructure (especially parking and sidewalks) and channel maintenance; competing visions of the business community, residents and tourism; the village/township dichotomy; and the past lack of transparency with former government officials.
Correlating with dissatisfaction with past governing officials, the opportunities included optimism with the village’s new council and staff leadership; expansion and support of year-round businesses (tax incentives suggested); developing or updating zoning, short-term rental and other ordinances to attract young families; enhancing the village’s marketing and communications plans; and expanding housing and services for seniors to facilitate aging in place in the community.
Threats mirrored the weaknesses: lack of affordable housing and young families; lack of a long-term plan for channel maintenance and infrastructure upgrades; lack of services for the aging population; and lack of medical, dental, pharmacy and grocery sources. LaBarge said, “I didn’t anticipate any surprises in the responses, but I found that the frequent listing of golf carts and lack of enforcement ordinances about the golf carts as a ‘threat’ did surprise me.” Others present found themselves in agreement with the concern. “I’ve seen golf carts driven by youths too young for licenses, carts driven far too fast for safety or carts driven after dark without lights on,” O’Connor reported.
Speaking for the Steering Committee, Roberson shared the evolution of a mission statement the group drafted for the council to consider. He reminded the group that surveys are only tools, sometimes flawed, that provide a starting point for a strategic plan. Marshall challenged the council members “to tear the statement apart. What do you like about it? What words or language do you find troubling? What don’t you see here that you think should be here? What do you see here that you think should not be here? What ideas or goals do you have to add to the Steering Committee statement?”
Her challenge launched a long discussion. Notable comments included the importance of mentioning “essential services and doing them well,” the importance of “reviewing and updating the master plan as things may evolve – for example, our recycling program,” “we should have a road map clear enough to help us determine what new things may fit, or may not fit, in our strategic plan,” “we need to include things ranging from the most basic to the cutting edge,” and “we need to recognize we can’t do everything, we are a village that can’t afford to do everything on the cutting edge.” O’Connor appreciated the strength of the verbs in the present tense, i.e., “is …” instead “will strive to be…” She also remarked on the need for attention to the loaded meaning a word or phrase could hold, enabling different interpretations to different people.
Roberson’s suggestion to the council was to formulate the strategic plan on three or four “pillars” under which they could list short- and long-term goals with a time frame for accomplishing them. Some options for the “pillars” were essential services, economic development, housing, communication among constituents in the community or protection of the natural environment. As one or two goals were accomplished, one or two more could be tackled.
Closing comments included Village Manager Rachel Witherspoon’s report that she had met with the zoning administrator and DPW director to work on plans for sidewalk repairs, scheduled to begin this fall. She also reported an arborist had been consulted to determine what may have caused all the trees on Hancock Street in the business district to exhibit fall characteristics prematurely. A lack of water was ruled out as the cause. This concluded the evening’s discussion and the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
