Subject:
Title
2026 Comprehensive Plan - Guidance on Goals, Policies, and Strategies
Body
Purpose:
Council is asked to reach consensus on the criteria and guidance that staff will convey to the Planning Commission for reducing the number of goals, policies, and strategies in the draft Comprehensive Plan.
Key QUESTIONS:
1. What criteria should distinguish which goals, policies, and strategies remain in the Plan versus which are removed, reworded, or deferred (e.g., level of specificity, presence of an identifiable implementing party, time horizon)?
2. Does Council want to set a target or range for the total number of strategies, and should that target apply Plan-wide or by chapter?
3. Should Council proceed by adopting a streamlined Plan now and reviewing the remaining/removed strategies in batches at future work sessions, or should the full revised list return from the Planning Commission before the Plan is adopted?
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
At its September 14, 2026, work session, Town Council discussed the implementation framework included in the Planning Commission's draft 2026 Comprehensive Plan. The discussion focused primarily on the number and level of detail of the goals, policies, and strategies contained throughout the draft.
The current 2016 Comprehensive Plan contains 42 objectives and 182 strategies. The draft 2026 Plan contains 95 policies and approximately 300 strategies. The increase reflects, in part, more detailed policy direction, expanded subject areas, and input received from Town boards, commissions, staff, and members of the community during the update process.
Council members expressed concern that the number and specificity of the proposed strategies may:
• Make it difficult for Council to adequately review and affirm the full contents of the Plan;
• Create expectations that every strategy will be funded or implemented;
• Include operational or program-level actions that may be more appropriate for departmental work plans, master plans, the Capital Improvement Program, or a separate implementation document; and
• Reduce the Plan's ability to serve as a focused, accessible guide for long-term Town decision-making.
Council also recognized that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be aspirational and to establish the Town's long-term vision and policy direction. The inclusion of an item in the Plan does not, by itself, authorize funding, require implementation, amend the Zoning Ordinance, or replace future decisions by Town Council. Several Council members cautioned against removing valuable long-term ideas solely because they are not immediately actionable or funded.
During the discussion, several potential approaches were identified, including:
• Council does the reduction itself - set aside as impractical given the number of items and the time it would take.
• Adopt now, review strategies in batches later - the Town Manager suggested adopting a streamlined Comprehensive Plan now, setting the full list of strategies aside, and bringing them back in smaller groups (e.g., 10 at a time) at future work sessions for Council to affirm and add back in.
• Remand to the Planning Commission with guidance - Department of Planning and Zoning staff suggested sending the goals/policies/strategies back to the Planning Commission, which drafted the Plan on Council's behalf, along with clear guidance on the desired approach and outcome, rather than Council performing the line-by-line reduction itself. This is the approach the discussion ultimately centered on, and it is the basis for this agenda item.
• Time-horizon tiers - the Town Attorney noted that some jurisdictions organize goals into 5-, 10-, and 20-year horizons to help distinguish near-term/achievable items from longer-range, capital-intensive ones.
• Reframe toward actionable steps - several members suggested requesting the Planning Commission to strip out aspirational or promotional language ("encourage," "promote," "support") in favor of concrete, practical steps, which several members felt would substantially shorten the list on its own.
Council agreed to return at the next work session with individual ideas for what guidance to give the Planning Commission. The Town Attorney also noted that formally remanding items to the Planning Commission requires a Council vote (this can occur at a regular meeting following the work session discussion).
OVERVIEW:
Staff is prepared to help Council translate whatever criteria and guidance emerges from this discussion into a written referral to the Planning Commission.
Based on the September 14 discussion, Council may wish to provide guidance regarding:
• The appropriate balance between aspirational policy direction and actionable implementation steps;
• The level of specificity appropriate for a comprehensive plan;
• The types of items that should be consolidated, relocated, or removed;
• Whether strategies should be prioritized or organized by timeframe;
• Whether Council wishes to establish a numerical target or a broader expectation for a meaningful reduction; and
• Whether the revisions should occur before adoption or through a subsequent amendment or implementation process.
Any ideas removed from the draft could be retained in a separate working document so they remain available for future consideration.
SUMMARY/STAFF IMPRESSIONS:
Staff's impression from the September 14 discussion is that there is general Council agreement on two points: (1) the current draft's strategy count is larger than Council wants to formally adopt and deliberate on in full, and (2) the Planning Commission, not Council, is the appropriate body to perform the detailed reduction, provided it receives clear guidance. Where Council has not yet converged is on the specific criteria, whether to set a numeric target, and whether reduction should precede or follow initial Plan adoption. Reaching consensus on these points is the central purpose of this work session.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that Town Council:
1. Provide consensus guidance on the three Key Questions above; and
2. Direct staff to prepare a written referral memo reflecting that guidance, for formal action (by motion) at a subsequent regular meeting, consistent with the Town Attorney's guidance that remanding items to the Planning Commission requires a Council vote.
As part of preparing that referral, staff will consult with the Town Attorney on the procedural implications of the approach Council selects, including whether the revisions or a later amendment would require additional public hearings.