Ok – so the summit focused on a brainstorming session followed by a dot exercise to see what was most popular by attendees. What follows is the results of the first exercise.
The numbers indicate the number of dots the item received. Original document with info below here. And sorted by group is here.
Elements of a Good Process as Identified by All Groups, Combined and
Presented According to Number of Dots Received
32 – Continue authority of independent committees and commissions
28 – Keep supermajority requirement to overturn Landmarks
18 – Early, informative communication from developer prior to application
18 – Make lobbying transparent. How can neighborhood associations equal the impact of lobbying?
16 – Make decisions based on next generation, not next election
15 – City process
• Predictability
• Consistency
• Transparency
• Fairness to all
• Early introduction of idea (not DMI proposal to eliminate)
13 – Education of associations and alders re: process
• City-supplied
12 – Require environmental impact-type statements to define impacts of development: environmental, archaeology, cost, traffic, economic, viewsheds
10 – Associations included in all staff meetings
10 – No secret meetings (more transparency)
9 – Scale process appropriately to complexity of the development
7.5 Professional independence of City staff
7 – Developers should come earlier with more choices before decisions are made
7 – Recognize and preserve diversity of neighborhoods
7 – Strong alder relationship
7 – Developer must document response to neighborhood concerns
6.5 – Communication:
• Need for active neighborhood association
• Pre-application: Neighborhood association must be notified, not just alder
• Redundancy: Postcards to neighbors, neighborhood association →members, multiple notices, so not last minute
6 – Developers present neighborhood engagement process to neighborhood board for approval
6 – Neighborhood associations and planning councils need to be active, organized and represent neighborhoods
6 – Easy access to information about the process
6 – Good practices shared from existing neighborhood associations
• Set of guidelines
• Go-to committee to help problem solve
• Website
• Mentor system
5 – Higher value on attributes of neighborhood
5 – More support from City for neighborhood plans
• What is process when proposed development does not comply with neighborhood plan?
5 – Proactive neighborhood planning
4 – We need training for alders in facilitation
4 – Better notification process
• Bigger mail list
• Further in advance
4 – Neighborhood plans need to comply with Comprehensive Plan
• Neighborhood plans need to have more teeth
4 – What is wrong with current process? Clearly articulate what needs to be fixed.
4 – Recognize current process works for vast majority of proposals. How do outliers like Edgewater become smoother?
4 – Early, transparent communication
3 – Impact statement: Require – environment/traffic/…
3 – More effective ways of public testimony
3 – Uniform, minimum standard neighborhood association membership – city-wide
3 – Good communication/notification in neighborhood
3 – How do different layers of planning (neighborhood, comprehensive) work together? Directive vs. mandatory?
3 – How do different layers of planning (neighborhood, comprehensive) work together? Directive vs. mandatory?
3 – Better information sharing; gets missed, and it needs to happen before the shiny plan gets presented to the City
3 – City support of neighborhood associations
3 – Defined process – stick to it
3 – Electronic access to development info
3 – Defined first point of contact for City
2 – Communication/notification: Required, timely, accurate, open, good faith, available, easy access
2 – Earlier engagement between neighborhood and developer
2 – We need education for neighborhood associations re: committees, processes, etc.
2 – Reasonable time frames for process
2 – Encourage neighborhood association communication with other organizations in the neighborhood and larger community
2 – Better reporting/notice of new developments/much earlier
2 – What is development process (clarity)? Roles and responsibilities (alders and neighborhood associations).
2 – Plan for complete services (grocery, drugstore in neighborhoods)
2 – Open-minded developers that engage in good faith negotiations
2 – Active participation from neighborhood
1 – Notify and engage neighborhood associations ASAP
1 – Multiple neighborhood input on nearby (cross border) development
1 – Education: Meeting facilitation, processes, committees/commissions, neighborhood associations, problem solving skills
1 – Strengthen neighborhood associations: Connect/meet/best-good practices/involvement
1 – How do we get neighbors to pay attention? How to get active participation?
• Door-to-door leafleting
• MNI
• Postcards
• „Sound bite‟ communication
• Listservs
1 – No undermining of neighborhood associations (by alder, City)
1 – Developer should be required to communicate with neighborhood association at a certain level of development
• Formalize the process – require triggers/steps for dealing with neighborhood associations
• Get neighborhood association involved early – require it. Neighborhood associations have unpredictable lead time. (Hwy. 51 process worked well.)
1 – All neighborhood meetings to be independently facilitated and agendaed – City-trained
1 – Regular review and education on neighborhood plans
1 – Better contact info/directories
1 – Cross-training in roles/jobs
1 – Easier access by citizenry with questions
1 – For accountability
• Website – convey where in formal process a project is, when meetings occurred (published or not), and who was present
1 – How can neighborhood associations have a voice in the process?
1 – What is the role of the City in supporting/creating/strengthening neighborhood associations?
1 – Office of Neighborhood Support
1 – How can neighborhoods/the City be more proactive about getting development where we want and of the type we want?
1 – How do we make the planning process inclusive enough that people don‟t oppose things that are approved in them?
1 – Voice for people, including those not normally heard; people have opinions and want to be asked
1 – Neighborhood/business district plans are important
1 – Support from City staff in pre-application
1 – Flexibility in process to accommodate different neighborhood associations
1 – Well-defined, easy to understand and access info on City process
0 – Third party facilitated pre-application meeting(s)
0 – Laws: Zoning,… →present/educate
0 – Processes: Consistent, predictable, fair
0 – Democracy: Democratic process (↓lobbying, big $/unilateral vision)
0 – Roles/responsibilities: Define for all participants
0 – Plans: Neighborhood associations, comprehensive city, business districts
0 – Think future – Not next election
0 – No career alders
0 – Eliminate conflict of interest – at least identify
0 – Neighborhood notification • Keep, consider broadening and strengthening
0 – “Secret” meetings are likely legal but not required to have widespread notification. Process (development review) should list these allowances so they do not seem unethical, and allow public input at them (+ minutes publicized!)
0 – Gist of comment on value: Assessment should consider broader neighborhood qualities: Traffic, walkability, parking, safety …
0 – “By the time we (neighborhood association) find out about a project, we‟re told it‟s a done deal.”
0 – Neighborhood association = takes someone to organize
0 – We need a clear idea of what is good (eco, urban design, etc.), then discuss project in this context
0 – Alders have low budget for mailings
0 – Should alders be responsible for setting up neighborhood association?
0 – Citizen diligence/proactive
0 – Neighborhood associations NEED info – early and complete. Wary of collusion between City~developer
• Notifying alder may be sufficient – but they must be kept up-to-speed AND communicate with neighborhood association
• Also for zoning variances
• Neighborhood association should be notified @ pre-application process
• Process is difficult to access
0 – Good communication within neighborhood
0 – Neighborhoods need good education about criteria
• Criteria? What is currently used?
• Difference between substantive and process issues?
0 – If the City and developers want neighborhood associations and planning councils to be effective, they need support/resources
0 – Clarify and refocus role of neighborhood associations
0 – Streamline communication with staff
0 – How to notice people early enough in the process?
0 – Newsletters are sporadic, not everyone has computer access, bring back phone trees
0 – Parks Department seems able to respond and adapt to neighborhood association requests
0 – Neighborhood association presidents and alder must get early notification and act quickly
0 – Training sessions for interested neighborhood members
0 – Standardization of process, so that neighborhood associations have path/track to follow
0 – All developers are currently required to submit their materials digitally, so:
• Require staff to post these materials immediately to website
• Redesign City website to make it genuinely user-friendly
• Don‟t take “no” for an answer when someone says, “But it‟s Legistar; that‟s the way it works.” Bull – make it work better for citizens.
0 – Visual timeline for complex projects (Legistar is opaque)
0 – Some alders MIA in process
0 – Lack of public input
0 – Notification: Postcards should obey the “12 second” rule – grab people‟s attention
0 – How do we strengthen neighborhood plans?
0 – How often should neighborhood plans be updated?
0 – Do we need to revisit the process to become an “official” neighborhood association?
0 – How do we ensure that neighborhood associations represent/communicate with their neighborhoods?
0 – Neighborhood associations are important in the process because they smooth rough edges
0 – Best City leaders cut their teeth in neighborhood associations
0 – Neighborhood associations provide for participatory involvement that has enhanced neighborhoods
0 – Neighborhood associations encourage something good, work off the rough edges, prevent bad things all together
0 – We can point to things in Madison resulting from long, drawn-out processes
0 – Neighborhoods need to develop their own, project-consistent protocols
0 – Facilitate neighborhood cooperation
0 – Required notification and current waiver system
0 – Informed, communicative alder
0 – Broadly based neighborhood involvement
0 – Experience and knowledge in neighborhood association
0 – Good process to communicate from neighborhood association to City
0 – Retain experienced City commission members
0 – Communication
0 – Early notification
0 – Predictability of process
0 – Consistency
0 – Fairness to all
0 – Transparency
0 – Early introduction of idea
0 – Proactively look at agendas
0 – Good communication in neighborhood
0 – Nothing unpredictable about current process
• Citizen diligence
0 – Uniform neighborhood association membership citywide? Yes.
• Some don‟t allow renters
• Some don‟t allow non-owner tenants
• Inclusivity – open membership
0 – Require contact neighbors, alders, neighborhood associations
0 – Developers need to provide timeline and process to engage neighbors
0 – Enlarge notification area for public hearing
0 – Better education of alders and neighbors on process
0 -Improve notification – expand area and increase time
0 – Neighborhood associations to participate in City-developer meetings
0 – Improve capacity to facilitate meetings
0 – Notify all on border of district
0 – Make Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood plans and zoning all consistent and stick to them (teeth!)
