This part asked what’s working well, favorite suggestion today and important lesson today. The document by group is here. I arranged them by category.
WHAT’S WORKING WELL NOW
Group 1
Neighborhood involvement √ √ √
Supermajority Current process
Not working – Madison too resistant to change
Have framework in place
Dialogue going on
Group 2
Landmarks Commission
CNI development protocols
Supermajority votes
Getting info from City/developer
Good communication from alder √ √
Responsiveness of City staff √ √
Neighborhood plans/planning process
Group 3
Neighborhood associations (strong ones)
Communication
Pre-approval process
o Strong neighborhood association
o Existing plan
Process improves project
o Urban Design Commission
o Landmarks Commission
Alder
Group 4
Staff communication and commission members
Staff works well in process
Overall development process works / Brad Murphy memo
Communication / feedback during process – better process
Commissions receptive to constructive comments
Staff are good sources of information
Group 5
Independent commissions
City staff support of planning process
Process for gathering input from neighborhood associations
Process works with developer who wants to engage neighborhood associations in honest, open process
Public hearings
Balance between Mayor’s Office and communications with / involvement of alder
Group 6
Neighborhood conferences and roundtables
Neighborhood grants
City neighborhood Website
Informal communications between some neighborhoods and some departments
Citizens working with City staff
Listserv (neighborhood email)
o Good communication between neighborhood and alder
Legistar → City’s Website
Citizens in neighborhoods talking amongst each other
Citizens taking time to engage in various City commissions
o Good work, experience, thoughtful review of people on commissions
Madison citizens are involved and educated and review many things
o Projects → well-informed citizens
o Good foundation upon which to work
City staff helped us to develop a neighborhood plan
Process as a whole works for 95% of projects
Landmarks Commission works well
Group 7
Many active neighborhood organizations √ √
Resident willingness to participate
This morning’s meeting
Many neighborhoods feel the same way (share concerns)
Neighborhood communication (for most neighborhoods)
Group 8
Initial notice to neighborhood associations good
Very, very, very in-tune alder (Verveer)
Basic approval process is sound
High energy and input neighborhood association
City staff competent and independent
Group 9
System – less complex projects
Alder communication
Notice from the City – initial
Group 10
At least there’s a general process (foundation to build on)
Active neighborhood associations are being effective / have impact
Not enough knowledge of process to answer questions
There is a crack in the process that allows neighborhood associations to have input
Committees / commissions have positive effect on processes
Groups with representation have input
Group 11
Working now Today!
This is working, bringing people together √ √
Opportunity to voice opinions, hear our neighbors
Hiring good City personnel (if they listen!)
Helpful City staff (when you finally reach someone!)
Citizen review (both commissions and associations) does work
Basic process (though needing constant vigilance) does work
Group 12
Developer/neighborhood association meetings facilitated by alder
Strong voice of neighborhood associations
Multiple viewpoints are involvement through committees
(strong) Independent Plan Commission and Urban Design Commission members
Flow diagrams of process
Neighborhood plans
DATs
FAVORITE SUGGESTION TODAY
Group 1
Consistency among neighborhood associations
Transparency
Better education and communication within development process to neighborhood associations
Department of neighborhoods √
Easily understandable Website Training for neighborhood associations (+ include developers)
Development impact statement required
Neighborhood associations need to be more nimble
Group 2
Think next generation, not next election
Preserve integrity of City committees, commissions and boards
Standardized output from neighborhood associations
Office of Neighborhood Services
Retain supermajority for Landmarks Commission and others
City support for neighborhood associations
Environmental impact statements for projects
Increase communication between neighborhood associations
Retain and support engaged neighbors and neighborhood associations
Group 3
Physical location for development
Information on neighborhood level
Support development of neighborhood plans ($) √ √
Consider next generation as well as current residents
Draw on varied local resources (e.g., citizen expertise)
Reforming citizen input (esp. public hearings)
Earlier information and involvement with neighborhood association (by developer)
City processes should be fair, predictable and transparent
Group 4
Increase transparency
Conversation among neighborhood association, developer and alder should start early
More training in facilitation
More neighborhood association participation in developer / City conversations
Clarifying role of neighborhood plans
Group 5
Commit developer to public engagement process
Keep oversight and authority of boards and commissions
Scale-able process
Independence and support of City staff
More adherence to and support of neighborhood plans
Increase public notice area from 200’ to 500’ or 600’
Group 6
Required early notification of developers and it being open and public (no secret meetings)
City works to develop a process for “Joe / Jane” Doe to understand City development process
Neighborhood associations supporting other neighborhood associations
Clarity and transparency in process
o Better communication between executive branch and all else
o Requiring all development projects having an economic impact statement (EIS; traffic, water, etc.)
o Facilitating training of all alders
o City processes are predictable, transparent, etc., and abide by them
Group 7
Thinking of next generation and not next election √
Building the power / participation of neighborhood associations
Working with a positive and constructive vision √
Developers required (not suggested) to notify neighborhood associations
Group 8
Keep supermajority
Facilitator training neighborhood associations / commissions
Predictability / consistency / transparency
Authority including committees
Communicate early and often
Group 9
Impact report (EIS light)
Cross-sectional notification
Development – spell out timeline process
Neighborhood associations – more help with plan
Group 10
Better communication to educate ALL on proposals / processes (*EIS required for ALL proposals)
Keep supermajority for Council to overturn Landmarks Commission
More access for ALL to information on proposals
Early notification of neighbors, not just neighborhood associations
Simplify info-seeking on City Website
Continue authority of committees / commissions
Group 11
Idea of standards / model for neighborhood associations
Impact statements for development / big pictures
Next generation thinking
Office of Neighborhood Support √ √
Proper assessment of the City eco-system – into law
Strengthening neighborhood associations to further best practices
Today’s strong consensus
Group 12
Much earlier participation in pre-application process
Independent department heads and commissions
Increased resources for neighborhood associations
o Training, etc.
o Department
Make decisions based on next generation, not next election
Scale-ability of process
Fund neighborhood plans
Streamline public process for input
IMPORTANT LESSON TODAY
Group 1
Involved individuals √ √
System is fixable
Make sure Edgewater is an anomaly
Lots of variation among neighborhood associations
Still some hope!
A lot of people still discussing Edgewater
Group 2
Duplicate Marquette Neighborhood Association and CNI outreach to developers
Satisfaction with current process – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it
Similar issues cross neighborhood association boundaries
Use neighborhood association ability to track bankruptcy – anticipate need
Broad concern among neighborhood associations on being cut out of the process
More concern, involvement than known before
Need for citywide neighborhood association meetings
Only minor tweaks needed
Neighborhood associations need better communication and collaboration
Group 3
Widespread interest in this
Mayor speaks out of two sides of mouth
Get a neighborhood plan – very important
Enthusiasm for neighborhood associations
Inside scoop on a project
More education is desired and needed
Group 4
Regular citizens have incredibly difficult time getting info
Neighborhoods not actively engaged see need for it
Most of us agree on most things
Wauwatosa has two Urban Design Commissions
Reinforce importance of communication
Lots of us want to work to improve our neighborhoods
Group 5
A lot of people care about their neighborhoods and the city
Process could be better with better, more consistent training of neighborhoods and alders, and support of neighborhood plans
Need to increase funding for neighborhood plans and training
Lots of positive enthusiasm for making city better, lots of creativity and great ideas; use process to channel and benefit from this input
Tail can’t wag dog and overwhelm the above
Sends a message when staff from Mayor’s Office is at DMI and not here
Group 6
Landmarks always represents a specific ordinance
Lots of community concern and breadth of community concern
Thanks 🙂 to Marsha and others who helped to organize
All neighborhoods have plans
Group 7
Neighborhood associations have a great commonality of interests and concerns √
Surprised by level of commitment (so many people showed up for a 9:00 a.m. Saturday meeting in July)
Neighborhoods have many different experiences and an ability to think together
It’s possible to have a great level of involvement (people do care)
With some exceptions, people in apartments aren’t as invested in neighborhoods
Group 8
City planning → new Website
CNI has documental protocol
Positive involvement neighborhood activists √ √ √
Group 9
Process is working – don’t reinvent the wheel
Some alders are MIA
Comprehensive Plan is law
Neighborhood associations still respected if organized
Group 10
There is a widespread lack of knowledge of development process / roles
Neighborhoods do not approach review process consistently (among neighborhoods)
How mucked up the current process is
How few neighborhood associations are prepared to deal with redevelopment process
Most neighborhood associations don’t know much about process
Mobile home owners are marginalized due to absence of landownership
Widespread confusion of process among neighborhood associations
Group 11
People want to be involved and will take the time
All the tables identified common issues
Remembering that we “insiders” need to remember that all others need us to have patience / educate
There’s a lack of connection between neighborhoods and developers
Amount of friction between all the actors
Consistency between different areas of the city in what they need / identify
There’s a lot of people who care about this stuff!
Group 12
DMI has a plan!
Broad request for neighborhood participation
Process works and lots of people are concerned about more neighborhood involvement
Wisconsin State Journal reporting is inaccurate!
It’s not just about the Edgewater!
Even just the pre-application process has multiple viewpoints (process is complicated and that may be a good thing
