Plan for Success in 2019

Soon summer will be over and you’ll start planning your annual executive, council or organization retreat.  You’ll analyze your business, organization or community and carefully put together a budget and a plan for 2019.

But, is planning the same way you did last year going to yield better results?

Yes, if you avoid these common mistakes:

  1. Too Much Optimism. No one wants to be negative. And unless self appointed to the role of ‘contrarian’ no employee, board member or council person wants that title. But, if you go through a planning process where none of your conversations dive into uncomfortable territory or produced thoughtful disagreement, then you’ve got problems. Inevitably there are some sacred cows holding you back. To be truly successful, both the good and the bad have to be on the table and everyone has to be empowered and prepared to state the obvious. No pain, no gain.
  2. Cruise Control.  Like comfy pants that make you feel good or cruise control in your car, goal setting can default to what’s easy, reliable or comfortable.  But, comfortable doesn’t get you better, bigger or bolder. This year it’s time to stretch.  Set goals that you may not accomplish, but still make you look good for trying.
  3. Rephrase, Rearrange, Repeat. Your 2019 plan shouldn’t be an extension of your 2018 plan, which was an extension of your 2017 plan? When you’re planning, you should be able to look back at the plans from the last several years and see that your not stuck in the same spot.  This can help the discussion as you can often see that while you may have fallen short of a goal last year, you’ve still grown.
  4. Your Budget is Not Your Plan. Do you need a plan? Yes. Do you need a budget? Absolutely. Is a budget a plan? Not even close.  Budgets are based on a conservative picture of what could happen.  And budgets can be inflexible.  By contrast, plans shouldn’t be as conservative and they should be adaptable to changing conditions.  Tracking a line item budget month to month doesn’t measure progress, it measures restraint.

Want to accelerate your growth next year?  Contact us to facilitate your next company, organization or community retreat.

Planning Has Gone to the Birds

Given my title, I already know what you’re thinking:  “Planning has gone to the birds, huh?”  “Have you lost your mind Toyer?”  “What is your beef with planning?”

Answers (in reverse order to your questions): I don’t have anything against planning, but I am concerned about how we are planning.  No, I’ve not lost my mind.  Yes, this is a story about planning and birds.  Intrigued?  Then read on.

Last week I was a small community’s economic development plan while my wife was taking down a wreath on the front door of our house in the Midwest.  My wife loves to decorate for every holiday, change in season, or occasion that Hobby Lobby says exists, buying a new wreath to hang on the front door.  I never knew so many wreathes exist!

The problem develops every April when birds are looking to build nests and an unsuspecting bird family thinks the wreath is a great spot to build their nest.  But after several years of seeing this happen, I have begun to believe there’s something wrong with the birds’ planning process.

In fact, what I’ve seen on my porch combined with what I see regular when I sit down to review plans has convinced me planning has a problem and it’s not just a bird thing.

But, sticking with the story, imagine if birds knew about modern planning and related processes like SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) assessments.  If they did, would they not figure out that the wreath was a lousy location for their next home?

Problems with SWOT

Let’s be the birds for a minute.  The wreath resembles a snag of brush or tangle of tree.  It’s tucked back from the open elements and, at least in appearance, offers a higher level of protection from the severe thunderstorms and daily wind that adjacent foliage does not.  And being perched higher than much of the area around with a roof above and a wall to one side, the area to be watched for approaching predators is greatly reduced.  Strengths.

But on the downside, the location is a further from their conveniences (grass, flowers and trees where food is) and being more in the shade means the days and nights will be cooler.  Weakness.

As far as the design of the nest goes, there’s a strong likelihood that building the nest here will require less effort, fewer resources and a shorter time frame for construction, giving the birds more time to do other bird things.  Opportunity.

Now about the threats.  (Head Scratch)  None, because the strengths kind of outweigh the weaknesses and everything seems to be otherwise perfect.  Right?

Unfortunately no.  Here’s what goes wrong for the birds:

Unless you’ve experienced the weather in this location you wouldn’t know that the prevailing winds come from the west, catching the north corner of the porch and swirling back toward the corner where the wreath is located.  In fact, if they had observed this, they’d know the winds can circle so strongly that they lift the wreath up and drop it against the door like a old brass door knocker.

While we don’t use our front door often, we occasionally have a visitor or package delivered and the door must be opened.  With higher Spring humidity swelling the door a touch, opening the door requires a bit more of a tug.  As the door opens, this creates an action that causes the wreath to separate from the door like being pulled back in the seat of an accelerating car, but followed immediately by crashing back into the door like the car hitting a jersey barrier at 65.

Things have never gone well for the birds at this location.  They wind up building and rebuilding the nest.  And even when they’ve had eggs, they’ve rarely had any hatch.

This story highlights two of the biggest failures with SWOT in planning:

  1. Unacknowledged Unknowns.  Most SWOTs fail to identify what former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously referred to as the “Unknown, Unknowns.”  And while they are unknowns for a reason, they are also the blind spot from which  “disruption” typically appears.
  2. Predispositions. The failure to anticipate unknown, unknowns is a matter of our being predisposed to see our surroundings a certain way as well as to value strengthens above weaknesses and threats.  Added to the fact “Threats” are usually discussed last, further devalues the significance of considering what the worse things are that could happen to a plan.

Overcoming these obstacles requires more attention to “threats” and a willingness to accept a condition that something bad will happen.  This requires strategies for the execution of a plan that frequently look for emerging threats and strategies that all plans to be adjusted timely.

But it’s not just flawed SWOT that is bringing down the nest.

Looking Deeper at Planning Predispositions

Planning has become part of life, literally.  Liking brushing teeth.  Both of which we aren’t necessarily done as frequently as they should be.  Why?

We have made planning into an image of what we think a great plan is supposed to look and act like.  In fact, we are convinced great plans:

  1. Must be comprehensive, because what’s the point of planning, if not to be exceptionally thorough
  2. And by comprehensive, we are certain planning must feature:
    • Months of process and the involvement by groups, teams and/or committees of colleagues and/or stakeholders
    • Plans need to be explained, so prefaces and forewords are inserted to describe past plans and how this plan was created
    • History can’t be repeated so a description of everything prior to this plan’s creation is described ad nauseum to prove the “context” of the present is understood
  3. There must be lots of data.  A full and complete regurgitation of historical and current information collected or quantified at the time of the plan whether it relates to data points the plan should measure going forward or not

In regards to data, I liken it to my middle school Algebra teacher in my head reminding me, “Show your work.”  Because you can’t simply have the right answer, you have to demonstrate how you got the right answer.  However, such a philosophy is to a degree correct, but taken to this extreme in planning, it’s a waste of time.

This vision we’ve created is thus often justified (wrongly) by assuming that “comprehensive” plans are like luxury cars: expensive because they look better, have more features, and impress others.  But that doesn’t answer why we plan this way.

The deeper answer is that we have allowed “self” (both individually and collectively) to influence planning.  In this context, “self” as a participant is not seen as a double-edge sword.  While it brings diversity of thought, experience and opinion to the table, it also invites three dangerous influences to the party:

  1. Fear of judgement. Deep down we fear being judged.  In planning, we/I fear that someone, sometime will read the plan and we/I want them to be impressed with the work we/I did.  We/I want validation that the time and resources spent on planning were worth it.  Conversely, we/I fear someone will read the plan and see a failure because [______] was left out.
  2. Pride and Ownership. Whether the motivation is pride or ownership (or the desire to leave a legacy), we/I want to be a part of creating something grand.  This can influence planning as we/I start to view of the plan as the action or the accomplishment, and believing falsely that the plan is legacy we create (by the way, it’s usually not a great legacy when this is the thinking).  In contrast the real legacy of planning is the movement of a business, organization or community closer to its vision – movement that takes place when goals of the plan are accomplished.

By the way, when I see a list of the planning participants in the first five pages of a plan, it’s a strong sign that this error has been made.

  1. The Naivety of Wishing. As we got older we had to reconcile the difference between needs and wants.  But like the magic of Disney’s when we wish upon a star. . . our inner, raw optimism comes out too often in planning and we shift the focus of the plan towards wishful thinking.  A process that leads to seeing the future of the business, organization or community as something that it cannot realistically become.


Planning is critical and necessary, but it’s become more of a commodity than a strategy.  Like milk, it’s a so-called “staple” of our daily diet.  Something we generally have to share with others.  And if handled improperly or kept too long it goes bad.

Now is the time to refocus planning around three key elements:

  1. Avoid the trap of “comprehensive” planning.  Refocus the planning process develop a strategy that’s appropriate, actionable, and adaptable.
  2. Respect real-time data and leave the irrelevant past behind.  We are in a new world and historical data has limited value. Focus instead on how evaluate real-time information and the processes you need in place to adapt to current and emerging conditions.
  3. Set an expiration date and refresh or replace the plan.  A plan is only good if you use it and all plans have a self life.  Plans needs to include ways to evaluate and measure what is finished, processes to adjust the strategies and a reasonable time period for completion or replacement.

About the Author
David Toyer is the founder of Toyer Strategic Consulting and an entrepreneur, economic developer, land use adviser and recovering lobbyist with nearly two decades of experience turning ideas into finished projects. He’s also the creator of Toyer Framework™ – an approach to creating more efficient and effective economic development plans in communities 50,000 or less in population.  For more information about David Toyer or Toyer Strategic Consulting, visit



Exclusive: Rhodora Annexation Reaches 60%

Working with several landowners, we recently submitted a 60% notice of intent to annex the Rhodora Area to the City of Lake Stevens.  Getting to this milestone was not easy.

The effort began last September with an analysis of the area and determination of which method of annexation method to pursue, deciding to move forward with a direct petition method annexation.

Since then we’ve spent months reaching out and meeting with nearly every property owner in the annexation area to discuss the annexation and what it means.

You can learn more about the annexation at

But here are examples of how we have reached out:

Mailer #1

Door Hanger #2 (Front)

Door Hanger #2 (Back)

Mailer #3

Pellerin Annexation Hits Milestone

Click here for a map of the Pellerin Annexation.

David Toyer, founder of Toyer Strategic Consulting and a native of Lake Stevens, is leading several annexation efforts to finally unite Lake Stevens as one community around the lake.

The first of the annexations to achieve a 60% petition is a 27 acre area known as “Pellerin.”

Here’s an overview:

  • On October 3, 2017 we submitted a 10% notice of intent to annexation the area known as “Pellerin” to the City of Lake Stevens.
  • On December 12, 2017 the City Council for the City of Lake Stevens adopted Resolution 2017-021, authorizing circulation of a 60% petition.
  • On December 21, 2017 we submitted a 60% annexation petition to the City of Lake Stevens, seeking annexation of approximately 27 acres.
  • Submission of the 60% petition now requires the City of Lake Stevens to hold a public hearing to formally consider annexation of the area.
  • If annexed, the Pellerin area would have a comprehensive plan designation of medium density residential (MDR) and zoning of high urban residential (HUR).
  • We expect the public hearing to occur in late January or early February of 2018.



Time for Reform

With Congress considering changes to our federal tax code, I’m reminded how every few years there’s a push for major tax reform.

The ‘reform’ always begins with both sides arguing three basic points:  the rates are too high, the rates are too low, and the rules are too complicated for average people to understand.  Yet despite the battle cry to “do something” the efforts usually end with mere tinkering at the edges – a far cry from the wholesale change envisioned.

However, our federal tax code isn’t the only complex regulatory scheme in need of reform.

In fact, for those of you that think that our nation’s tax code is horrible and reform is divisive, let me suggest there is actual something far worse lurking at the local level: outdated zoning regulations.

And like taxes, zoning has a major financial impact on every American:

  • Increased housing costs resulting from often duplicative and over zealous permitting processes
  • Higher taxes to cover long range community planning efforts
  • Outdated standards that dissuade economic development and job creation

Zoning is something we all pay for, but rarely think about.

History of Zoning
The origins of zoning date back to the mid-1860s when restrictions on commercial activity were adopted for areas in Brooklyn, NY.  However, it wasn’t until 1916 when New York became the first city to adopt city-wide zoning regulations, leading to the adoption of zoning codes throughout much of the nation by the mid 1920s.

In the nearly 100 years since zoning was established, most jurisdictions have passed hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments that replaced some of the most obviously outdated chapters, added new zoning schemes to rapidly developing areas, and promulgated additional administrative rules and code interpretations.  The result is a labyrinth that leave even great planners struggling with implementation and consistent application of the standards.

So What’s the Problem?
Take for example a zoning district that one of our clients was struggling with last month.  The district, originally created in the 1970s, has been amended a couple of times over the last 40+ years with the most recent just about a decade ago.  However, none of the amendments were comprehensive.  This ‘tinkering’ with standards was either a response to change (sometimes to prevent development) or loose desire to find ways to encourage new development.

The struggle with aged zoning regulations is that the type, size and aesthetic of development contemplated 40+ years ago couldn’t have envisioned how businesses of that type would evolve.  This leaves planners, citizens and developers often scratching their heads in frustration.

For example, 40+ years ago a 25 foot height limit on a small, local manufacturer may have worked.  But with today’s global marketplace, building costs, automation, technology, and equipment the equivalent need is for a height of 30 to 40 feet.

Add Even More Complexity
When codes don’t keep up with changes in the marketplace, the community may lose the project to somewhere that has current standards.  Or the community and company are forced into utilizing processes to seek and approve “deviations” or “variances” – the laymen terms for administrative and quasi-judicial processes that have been added to codes in order to approve projects that aren’t otherwise allowed per the strict requirements of the code.  And more often than not, these added approval processes are shortcuts created by jurisdictions because they don’t often have the time, resources or resolve to address the real need to update and modernize the code requirements themselves.

But the pitfall of deviations, variances and administrative approvals that “by-pass” portions of the regulatory labyrinth come with unintended and negative consequences.

First, they don’t work in all cases because they are often subjective approvals that can be swayed by local politics.  Second, they invite residents of the community to criticize the process as planners caving, bending or catering to the developer.  Both of these consequences are bad.  And either the community gets a reputation for not being pro-economic development or they get a reputation as being bought and paid for by developers.

And as you can imagine, this has larger political ramifications for local elected officials.

What’s the Solution?
Over the last decade communities have started to move forward with “Unified Development Code” projects that overhaul all their zoning regulations and combine the standards spread across multiple chapters of code into a single zoning chapter that eliminates duplication, increases consistency (e.g. in how terms are defined), and makes necessary changes to bring the standards themselves current to the types of development actually happening.

But this type of project can be expensive and many jurisdictions either balk at a perceived lack of return on investment (ROI) for their the time and cost; or they don’t have the resources to afford improving the system.  Thus, communities continue to trudge the muddy road of doing things the same way but expecting different results.

Our company, working with both communities and developers, can attest to the improvements and benefits of overhauling zoning.

We strongly encourage those communities to adopt unified development codes if they are eager to experience economic growth, diligent about providing transparency for their citizens, and serious about reducing unnecessary costs, burdens and appeals stemming from outdated regulations.

Contact us if you want to learn more about how zoning can help your community.