Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-29 Minutes, City Commission, specialMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION BOZEMAN, MONTANA November 29, 2001 The Commission of the City of Bozeman met in special session at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 29, 2001, in the Community Room of the Bozeman Public Library at 220 East Lamme Street. Present were Mayor Youngman, Commissioner Brown, Commissioner Frost, Commissioner Smiley, Commissioner Kirchhoff and Clerk of the Commission Sullivan. Si~ninQ of Notice of Soecial Meeting Each of the Commissioners, in turn, signed the Notice of Special Meeting. Work session re facilitated discussion program The panel for this meeting included Tim Cooper, Kathryn Strickland, Linda Young, Kathy Nelson, Marcia Youngman, Mark Evans, Andy Epple, Ron Brey and Larry Sterne. Maribeth Goodman served as facilitator. She briefly highlighted the format for this meeting, noting that during the first hour, various panel members will provide information and during the second hour questions from the audience will be answered and feedback will be solicited. Presentation of program Mayor Youngman stated it is anticipated the new facilitated discussion program will help address and prevent land use conflicts, noting that the current land use decision-making process can be adversarial and formal and tends to build conflict. The facilitated informational meetings and/or facilitated dialogue will give people a chance to talk before conflicts develop and could result in better projects. The Mayor noted that the City used the Community Mediation Center to facilitate a discussion regarding skateboards in Bogert Park; and the success of that facilitated discussion could serve as a good model for the facilitated discussion program. She noted that during the past year, representatives from the various organizations represented on the panel have worked to develop the proposal being submitted at this meeting. Ms. Kathy Nelson, land use facilitator from Albuquerque, New Mexico, reviewed the model used in that community. She noted that she trained as a facilitator in the early 1980s and subsequently found that facilitation in land use issues could be beneficial. Albuquerque's program is funded through the City's general fund, and the program has been expanded to include a variety of City agencies. She concluded by noting the process of facilitated meeting has had a profound influence on the working relations between developers and citizens. Mr. Mark Evans, Executive Officer of the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association, stated the biggest benefit of the program could be removing uncertainties from the approval process. He noted that a facilitated information meeting early in the review process could identify potential issues before a lot of time and money has been invested in a course of action. He indicated that a number of concerns about the process could be worked out in the first couple pilot projects, and concluded by stating the program has promise. Andy Epple, Director of Planning and Community for the City, stated that this program is designed to improve the overall planning process, noting that standing in front of the Commission is not a good environment for resolving problems, particularly between a developer and the neighborhood. He estimated that the facilitated dialogue program would be used not more than half 11-29-2001 Special -2- a dozen times a year, while there could be up to ten facilitated information meetings a year. He reviewed a schematic of the review process, which includes pre-application meeting, formal submittal, public notice, staff review and advisory body review, and City Commission action. He indicated that either a facilitated information meeting or a facilitated dialogue could occur at essentially any step in the process, suggesting that earlier in the process would be better. He indicated that the facilitated information meeting is designed to provide for exchange of information while a facilitated dialogue is more resolution oriented, with both types of meetings being held on neutral ground in a safe environment. He concluded by briefly highlighting some recent projects for which a facilitation could have been beneficial. Ms. Kathryn Strickland, Director of the Community Mediation Center (CMC), noted that CMC is a non-profit organization dedicated to quality and affordable conflict services. She noted they have over thirty volunteer trained facilitators and briefly highlighted some of the programs with which they have been involved, including the Justice Court, the public school system, Montana Legal Services and youth probation. She stressed that they provide a neutral place where people can talk about issues respectfully and in earnest. Ms. Strickland stated that the facilitated information meeting is to be held early in the process and is designed to prevent conflicts through proactive information exchange. This type of meeting is a goodwill gesture and allows for issues and concerns to be identified, clarified and maybe even resolved. Those who attend this type of meeting may include the applicant and representatives, neighbors within 200 feet, neighborhood associations, possibly a City staff member, and two facilitators from CMC who will conduct the meeting. The results of the meeting are to be submitted to both the Planning Department and the City Commission in a report drafted by the facilitator; and that information is strictly advisory to both bodies. Ms. Strickland stated that the facilitated dialogue meeting could occur at any time after a facilitated information meeting. This could be characterized as a brainstorming session to find an innovative solution. Those invited to participate would include the applicant and representatives, neighbors expressing interest, neighborhood associations, possibly a City staff person, and two facilitators from the CMC who will conduct the meeting. The results of these meetings will also be submitted to the City through a report drafted by the facilitator. Ms. Strickland briefly highlighted the differences and similarities of these meetings. Differences include timing, cost (since a nominal fee is attached to the facilitated information meeting but no cost is attached to the facilitated dialogue), who requests the services, and emphasis of the meeting. Similarities include the fact that the meetings are voluntary, they are facilitated by a neutral party, the meetings are advisory, they are offered in addition to the public hearing process, they are held in a neutral non-adversarial place where people can talk respectfully and fully, and the recording process. Ms. Linda Young, Community Mediation Center, stated that the presentation has been made as if this program is in place. She stressed, however, that this is simply the committee's recommendation and is subject to revision through input at this meeting and consideration and approval by the City Commission. Question/answer period Members of the panel responded to several questions from those attending. Below is a brief synopsis of some of those questions and responses. One question revolved around the City's role in mediation, particularly in light of the fact that some conflicts seem to result from the City's rules and regulations and their administration. The response included the fact that a City staff member is to be present during facilitated discussions to make sure the solutions being considered can be legally considered by the City. If a regulation is identified as consistently creating problems, it may be necessary for the City to consider an amendment. Also, staff members may be able to identify neighborhood concerns that can be resolved early in the process through facilitation. 11-29-2001 Special ~3- A question arose on whether the facilitated dialogue is a single meeting or a process in itself; the response was that the facilitated dialogue could consist of several meetings, and it may arise from a facilitated information meeting. The panel recognized that an extensive knowledge base is not needed for one to participate in the facilitated information meeting, but a greater knowledge base may be needed to participate in the facilitated dialogue and that could be provided through the technical expertise of a City staff member. In response to a question about whether this process could change how the City's current review process works, it was recognized that with the recent adoption of the 2020 growth plan, the zone code will require revision; and those revisions could significantly change current processes. A member of the Zoning Commission and City Planning Board recognized the knowledge and expertise that members of those boards possess. He expressed concern about the effects that a facilitated dialogue held after the advisory board's recommendation might have on the Commission's action, particularly since the board would have no opportunity to react. He also questioned whether the facilitated meetings would be subject to the open meeting law and public notification requirements. The panel stressed that the facilitated discussions are strictly voluntary, and an applicant may choose not to take advantage of the process. They also recognized that keeping this process closed will allow for more open and honest discussion; however, the results or outcomes of the discussion will be made public through the submittal of the facilitators' report. The issue of having the City be a party in the discussion had not been contemplated by the committee, due in part to the fact that issues with City regulations or application of those regulations must be addressed in the manner provided by law. Responding to additional questions about the process, the panel stated that under their proposal, the applicant must request, or at least consent to, a facilitated process. If the citizens want facilitation but the applicant does not, it won't happen. A member of one of the City's advisory boards asked if this process could be open to other boards. She also questioned why only the applicant can seek a facilitated information meeting, noting that it would be helpful if the neighbors could request such a meeting. During response, it was recognized City staff could encourage the applicant to request such a meeting, but it cannot be required. Representatives from CMC indicated an interest in getting the land use facilitation program in place first, recognizing that after that, it could possibly be expanded to other applications. In response to additional questions, it was stressed that professional facilitators will run both the facilitated information meetings and the facilitated dialogues; and they will be responsible for making all parties comfortable and keeping the meeting on an open and respectful footing. Also, at the beginning of a meeting, the facilitators are to set the ground rules, identify the purpose of the meeting and provide any information that the participants need. Representatives of the Community Mediation Center indicated they do not intend to advertise the availability of this process; however, informational brochures will be sent with official notices of upcoming public hearings so that people are aware the process is available. Also, it was suggested the City's application forms could be revised to include a box that the applicant may check if interested in facilitated discussion. Ms. Linda Young noted that the committee has identified five criteria for facilitated dialogue. They recognized that if a dispute between applicant and neighbors is not resolvable or if not all of the parties are willing to participate, the application will continue to go through the regular review process. She indicated that those who will be facilitating the meetings are already trained facilitators; however, they will be receiving an additional day-long special training session prior to undertaking land use facilitations. Another question pertained to whether this process could be viewed as a time-saving tool, particularly since one of the issues for applicants is the length of time it currently takes to get a project approved. The response was that, with the way the process is currently structured, it would not be; rather, the goal is to arrive at decisions with which people are happier. The Mayor suggested that the Commission could consider revisions to the code that would allow decisions on small neighborhood projects to be made at an advisory board level rather than having all projects come to the Commission, which could shorten the time. 11-29-2001 Special -4- Ms. Kathryn Strickland recognized, in response to a concern voiced, that those participating in a facilitated discussion may not have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the organization they represent, citing the Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce as an example. In addition, Assistant City Manager Brey stressed the importance of having the appropriate people present, noting that there have been some recent hearings attended by the design consultant, who could not make operational commitments for the applicant. Mr. Jon Gerster noted that some issues go beyond the 200-foot notification area. As a result, he suggested that greater notification be provided for facilitated meetings, including a public notice and possibly notification through the interneighborhood council. Responding to additional questions, it was recognized that if a project is subjected to a facilitated dialogue after the City Planning Board or Zoning Commission hearing and is significantly changed as a result of that dialogue, it may be necessary to send the project back to that advisory body for consideration prior to the public hearing before the Commission. Responding to Commissioner Brown, Ms. Linda' Young stated that the County has not approached the Community Mediation Center about a facilitated land use program outside city limits, so the program will be inside city limits only. Planning Director Epple stated that the facilitated discussion process will result in a two-week delay in the review process. He stressed that, if a facilitated discussion is undertaken at one of the later steps in the process, the applicant will be asked to sign a document recognizing that the statutory time clock will be stopped until that process is completed. Solicitation of input Ms. Maribeth Goodman turned attention to questions on which the panel and the Community Mediation Center would like feedback, asking for audience response. Is this program needed? Those who responded indicated that it is. They recognized this is a way for the community to become more involved and to address issues in a non-confrontational manner. Do you think people will use this program? It was recognized that people will not use the program if they don't understand it. Further, this program will require time and active outreach, and its success will depend on word of mouth based on positive outcomes. Describe specific concerns you may have about participating in the program and how to alleviate them. Concerns were voiced about the fact that the applicant triggers the meetings, and not concerned residents, which sets an adversarial position immediately. The importance of making it clear that a third party, not the City, is facilitating the session was identified. Communicating the ground rules of the facilitated session, instruction on the process and identifying the outcomes at the beginning of a meeting was identified as extremely important. The difference between mediation and facilitation was noted, along with the importance of recognizing that facilitation does not include negotiation or making decisions. Concerns were also voiced about the potential that those participating in a facilitated process may "get slammed" as the result of Commission action. Mayor Youngman concluded the meeting by thanking those who attended. 11-29-2001 Special -5- Adjournment - 9:05 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Commission at this time, Mayor Youngman adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. ATTEST: Clerk of the Commission MAR~N~or 11-29-2001 Special