Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSummary of Public Hearing April 3 of Study CommissionMY SUMMARY OF WHAT I HAVE HEARD SO FAR FROM PUBLIC COMMENT By: Carson Taylor I am attempting to recount what I have heard from public comment, written and oral related to our most recent meeting. I also reviewed oral comments at our previous meetings, as well as previously submitted written comment. For this summary, I do not include miscellaneous public comment that I hear as I talk to our fellow residents in less formal conversation. After my review I think we need to see public comment in two ways, comment that is focused on the effect of our current structures and comments that are focused on potential solutions or changes in our structure. I have attempted, in a general way, to quantify the thrust of the comments, while being careful to not count the thoughts of an individual twice, but including each individual’s thoughts on each topic. The main positive comments that I have heard relate to staff, hard working and generally doing a good job at serving the public. In addition, active neighborhood associations were seen positively. On the “things that are not working well” side, I have heard a lot of comments indicating that the trust of local government is low. Commenters felt like they were not consulted, heard or listened to. Many felt that the City Commissioners had made up their minds before the public had a chance to weigh in on an issue. In this regard some felt like Commissioners were too close to developers, thus listening more to that side of a controversy. Others felt that staff had too much influence on the Commissioners. Some felt that the City Manager had too much influence over the Commissioners. From this, the most important messages were create structure that maximizes the connection between Commissioners and the public and that maximizes transparency in all governmental actions. I also heard that we need direction in the Charter for filling the Deputy Mayor spot in situations where the Deputy Mayor has succeeded the Mayor, who has left the position prematurely (resignation, removal, death). In addition, the Commission meetings are too long, the Community Development Board has too much power, other Boards should have more power. We haven’t balanced growth with quality of life From a proposed solution or, maybe better put as areas to study, perspective I heard that we should look at a system of geographic wards or districts that would spread the Commissions perspective across the City. With equal force I heard comments on the need to strengthen the Advisory Board system, including restoring the system to more Boards and more citizen involvement, changing the restrictions/protocols placed on our current Boards and Board members, and/or giving Boards more power in the case of Historic Preservation and less power in the case of the Community Development Board. I also heard a good bit of comment on how Commissioners are restricted from direct communication with staff. The idea of having a strong mayor vs. a hired City Manager as the Chief Executive was favored as an area of study by many people—with both sides of that discussion being represented. Other structural ideas that were aimed at maximizing the weight of public input included, not having the public wait through hours of a meeting before their comment is taken, creating a comment system that is more of a dialogue than a monologue, encourage student voices, put more issues in front of the voters, particularly when the issue is controversial and it is unclear what most citizens support, Other comments that I heard include the strangeness of having an election for Mayor that results in the winner not being Mayor for two more years, a need to strengthen and clarify rules of ethics, term limits, less government and ways to limit and/or reduce taxes and fees. Related to the Commissioners and Mayor there was some support for paying both or just the Mayor more for their labor. Study then, what a reasonable system for paying elected officials more while being certain that the comparable amount of work is done by the elected officials. QUESTIONS Are we getting the broad spectrum of people’s comments that we want? A good start, but anecdotally, I am hearing from people and ideas from people, that are not included in Public comment—such as City not following through on adopted policies—equal pay, closer relationship between City and other entities, like County. Is there a structural change that would make these things happen? Are we ready to start the discussion, generally, then more specifically, and can we posit that once that happens we will get more public input? Will the Communications and Education Plan bring in more thoughts? WHAT ELSE WOULD I LIKE TO KNOW AND HOW TO GET IT Find similar cities and see what they do. Get copies of their documents, example, Ron Brey sent us part of Missoula Charter. What do national organizations suggest, and what are best practices? A hard question I think is, How is x working in cities that have adopted x? Who can we hear from, City officials, staff, their public? All of above, I think. As we start to eat the elephant, one bite at a time, I see us further defining each topic, getting info. on what is working in other cities like ours, find out how well it is working, present to our public, take in their input, then write up a final recommendation. Let’s agree that until we have a comprehensive plan, we can change things-- -meaning we could agree on X, but then when we discuss Y, we realize that the two won’t work together, so we could change X to make it work better with Y. In other words, we have no recommendation until we have the whole recommendation. Summary of April 3, 2025 Study Commission Public Hearing Becky Franks This is an outline of what I heard from the public during the Public Hearing on April 3, 2025 and through written public comment that was provided via email. This is not a refiection of my personal views per se, but rather a list of what I heard. 1. What is working for the City of Bozeman a. The City of Bozeman does a great job of taking care of business in our community. Parks, roads, water, public library etc. b. City staff should be commended. They work hard and have great talent. c. Video access to meetings and recordings of meetings is appreciated. Communication is done well in many cases. 2. What is NOT working for the City of Bozeman a. Citizens feel disenfranchised and excluded from decision making processes. b. City codes are unevenly applied, poorly written, and slanted to favor developers working to advance out-of-town interests over the interests of local Bozeman residents. c. Citizens feel that out of state, wealthy developers are having great infiuence on the decisions of the City through flnancial support and taking away the voice of the people who live and work here. 3. Ideas for improvement a. Processes should make it far easier for citizens to have meaningful, tangible involvement that leads to results on the ground rather than the current way of doing things that emphasizes being “listened to”. 1. Citizens need to be able to get involved early enough to have an effect on eventual outcomes. 2. On matters requiring a vote (beyond the consent agenda), the city commissioners shall report individually on their understanding of public comments (what they heard), how they weighed those comments and why they are voting the way they are. 3. On major topics/issues have some informal Town Hall meetings where citizens and City Commissioners and Board members can talk to each other, ask questions. b. Citizen advisory boards need the authority to make binding decisions that the city has to adhere to. 1. Overhaul the Community Development Board to include equal representation from neighborhood associations, community members instead of just developers, architects, housing lobbyists etc. who all stand to gain from the approval of the development in question. Re-evaluate the infiuence/power of Community Development Board 2. Have an elected Citizen Council like they do in Helena and Great Falls. c. Change section 2.05, Prohibitions, to allow Commissioners to speak with city staff outside of the City Manager. Allow them to speak with department heads. d. Vote by districts or wards had great favor in the public comment. 1. This was provided by a citizen: “Adopting district elections will improve descriptive representation for marginalized groups, produce councilors who are closer to voters, and generate political outcomes that are more likely to address the needs of the neighborhoods…..Generally, at-large elections shift the representation toward voters rather than residents. In a districted system, regardless of level of turnout in an area, the area receives representation on the council” (Trounstine, 2025, District vs. At-Large Elections) e. Balance growth with the quality of life and value system of Bozeman and its residents. f. Review the form of government around: strong mayor, hired or elected city manager, full-time commissioners. Explore the power of mayor versus manager versus commissioners. Is there a separate vote for Mayor? 1. Term limits for Commissioners and Advisory Board members? 2. Pay Commissioners to allow for full-time work. 4. Given what we heard, what questions do you now have? a. How do the advisory boards work? Are there mandatory boards we must have via MCA? What are common and effective practices across the country for how these operate and how much binding power they have? b. How do the current Neighborhood Associations operate? Do they represent all neighborhoods? How is the Chair chosen? What power do they have and what decisions do they make? Does a Commissioner sit on each one? 5. What do you need to learn more about? What presentations would you like to hear and from whom? a. How is growth and building determined? How is it restricted through the current Charter and Advisory Board structure? How could there be more balance between growth and quality of life, assuring enough services and water support and affordable housing? How does or could the Charter change this? b. How do other cities gather public input in a meaningful way? Who is doing this really well and what does it look like? How does open communication with the public flt within the conflnes of the open meeting rules and laws? c. Speciflcally, which parts of the MCA do we need to know about before suggesting any changes to the Charter? d. How are flnancial decisions made? What role does the current Charter play in this decision-making process? What would be the best guidelines to put in the Charter in terms of flnancial decisions? Study Commission April 3, 2025 Public Hearing Notes for May 1st Report Jan Strout, Study Commissioner 1. What is working for the City of Bozeman – many skipped this or had limited reports in this area • Great City Staff • Neighborhoods and Inter-Neighborhood Assn • City Amenities – Welcoming City with Parks, Public Library, Trails, Main Street, free transportation • Basic Services – Trash pick-up, maintenance of public spaces, natural areas • Stepped up recent public engagement by CC • Environment and Sustainability commitments for mitigating climate change • Endorse Study Commission process for CC: What’s working, What’s not, recommendations SC process is commendable – “we get a good product from a good process” 2. What is NOT working for the City of Bozeman~ a) Communication and Public Engagement – had a number of references and mostly housing examples • Not Being heard – vast numbers based on Housing decisions, socio-economic/geographic status and a few others on their political beliefs • Want more public contact/communication between Electeds and Residents • Outreach to various parts of the community – want better use of Neighborhood Associations • Structure of CC Meetings with only 3 Minute Comment limits/ can be intimidating and no discussions • Lack of trust between Residents and City Staff and Electeds – believe decisions have already been made • Decision Making by the CC favors Developers • Roles/power of CAB’s need to equalize and strengthened to better advise CC decisions • Want more information about qualifications for City Manager as well as Wards systems – people need to be more informed before voting and participating in City government • Expand mutual respect instilled throughout SC, CC and community b) Governance: • At-large CC Representation isn’t working with lack of geographic representation in the North side, want to elect people who live in their Wards/Districts • Concerned if we have Wards, need to ensure democratic Elections with multiple Candidates where all Races are contested • Tensions between voting for your own Ward Commissioner and wanting to vote for other Ward Candidates on different Wards and city-wide Mayor • Strengthen roles of Mayor and CC’s – full time paid positions to do the work needed • Full-time CC and Mayor positions can attract more diverse talent and Candidates • Increase CC size (to 7) with both District and At-large Commissioners • Incorporate MSU Student voices and representation in City Government • City Manager – executes City policy, most want less powerful Manager role, less pay, not accountable because not elected • Mayoral Election is winner-takes- all from City Commissioners Vote • Eliminate Deputy Mayor role – 4 year Mayor term • City Manager/City Staff accountability/ checks and balances/uphold Ethics policies • City Commissioners, all Electeds, should report conflicts of interest and model Ethics policies • City Commission meetings are not always clear in goals and then hard to know how to participate • Bring back #32 Advisory Committees instead of 6 CAB’s • Earlier Notice on Public Comment for City Polices • Losing institutional memories – where is continuity? • Key issues (variety) should go on a Ballot • Concern about joint City-County Planning and Zoning with new Census Metropolis rules City Programs and Budget Priorities • More Policing vs Homeless people’s support • Safety protection and parking for City residents is unequal benefitting 1 side (South) of City vs the other side (North) • Lack of Affordable Housing and power of Developers • Disconnect between City governance and Development goals • Repeal or re-write BIB Plan and other DEI policies - if this is found illegal by State or Federal policies • Step up protection as environmental steward of waterways, vegetation and wildlife • Good government should govern least, individuals and neighborhoods should do more – City Charter should control as well as expand • Stop City Population/Development growth to preserve environment/climate quality • Should City employees and other workers as well as other residents who live outside the City have a voice in SC? Study Commission Recommendations • Want more input from Town Halls, Public Hearings and other Outreach for our work as Study Commission • Study Commission work should be on-going – liaison to moderate to oversee any changes in City government Structure • Want more dialogue between Study and City Commissioners at their/our meetings • Present options for Structural Change in the City (Wards, full time CC/Mayor pay, etc) to the Public and for the Vote with Pro’s and Con’s, Costs – lots of voter education 3. Ideas for improvement • Representation by Wards – variety of recommendations and resources very helpful, simplified as North and South or 4 Quadrants • Strengthen Roles of Mayor and CC’s – full time living wage paid positions to do the work needed, attract more diverse talent and candidates • Hire local talent for City Managers who know our City • Housing/Community Developers should shoulder most of costs of City infrastructure needs: ie, Policing, street/development infrastructure additions, etc – not taxpayers • CAB’s need stronger advisory role and to equalize their importance and communication to get advice from “smart” residents in advance of CC decision-making • Neighborhoods are valuable and invest in them to advise City Staff and CC – can volunteer leaders be paid? • Work together with County Commissioners and Gal Co. Study Commission • Post CC Minutes recording within days and have written record – too time-consuming to listen through hours of recording • Every neighbor/resident should be in a Neighborhood Association – bottom-up connection to our City and share opportunities for residents to participate • City Commissioner or Staff Emeritus to keep City’s institutional memory • Explore Single Point of Contact through City Manager to better use Staff expertise in Commission decision-making • If Commissioner resigns/dies, explore alternatives such as an elected back-up Commissioner to replace them instead of Legislative -mandated CC Replacement Appointments – recommendation for MT Legislature • Opportunities for the CC to engage with public is very desired and add more “Working Groups” Sessions at the CC that can be in dialogue/exchange • Have the CAB “experts” preview and share their recommendations BEFORE it comes to CC • Many City Environment and Sustainability Plans (ie, Sensitive Lands, Parks, Recreation and Active Transportation) are good and should be codified in Bozeman Municipal Code, but also need more enforcement and staff training. • Term limits for CC and Mayor 4. Given what we heard, what questions do you now have? • How does the City’s Housing/Community Development Policy reflect the 21st Century challenges and opportunities of growth, climate change, equity and fairness with human and environmental resources? • How can the City’s Communication and Engagement systems between Staff, CAB’s, Commissioners and the Public be more effective to advance trust of Elected/appointed Officials and key decisions? • What kinds of City Representation Structures encourage democratic participation in decision-making (Mayor, Commissioners At-Large and/or Wards, City Manager, Advisory Boards, Neighborhood Assns., etc) and ensure demographic/geographic diversity of our City? And strengthen our Democracy? • How can we better invest in our Neighborhoods as places where we live and for our community participation? What are best practices? 5. What you do you need to learn more about? What presentations would you like to hear and from whom? • What are examples of Best Practices/future directions in our City’s Housing/Community Development Policy process to reflect growth, climate change and fair/equitable use of resources? what are costs and lessons learned? – relevant Elected City Leaders and Staff, other comparable Cities in MT and Region • Research on Cities with effective Wards, Districts and/or At-Large Representation structures that encourage democratic participation in decision-making and governance? What are the costs and other impacts to move toward Full-time paid Mayors and City Commissioners? -- In MT and comparable Cities • What are impactful City-level Advisory Structures to benefit City Strategic Goals? - what is working and needs to change for these to be more effective?  CAB’s, Commissioners, Staff liaisons, Other MT and comparable Cities experiences • Care and feeding of creating and maintaining strong City Neighborhoods: what do they need?  Bozeman’s Inter-Neighborhood Assn - meet together with Study Commission?   Other Cities in Montana that have this investment?   Other Cities In Region? City of Seattle has strong commitment Seattle Department of Neighborhoods - Neighborhoods | seattle.gov  Eugene, OR • How does our City’s Infrastructure (ie, Budget, programs, services, implementation of City and State human rights, etc.) impact the effectiveness of our Governing and other Structures as a City? • What role does the Federal Funding cuts have on our City Budget and its commitments to non-profits that are part of the City Infrastructure ? – Invite Bridget Wilkerson, ED, One Valley Foundation, author, Federal Funding Report — One Valley Community Foundation Key Themes from Public Comments: Deanna Campbell 1. Appreciation for City Services: o Several attendees expressed gratitude for the dedication and professionalism of city staff, particularly in departments like streets, water, and waste management. 2. Concerns About Transparency and Public Engagement: o A recurring concern was the perceived lack of transparency in decision-making processes. o There is a considerable sense that that public input was often overlooked, leading to decisions that did not reflect community sentiments with the Gutherie approval being a prime example. 3. Representation and Diversity: o Several people highlighted the need for a more diverse City Commission that better represents the city's varied demographics. o Suggestions included exploring ward-based elections to ensure equitable representation across different neighborhoods. 4. City Manager Concerns: o There is considerable concern that the City Manager has too much power for an unelected official. o Many felt the commissioners have, or exercise, too little power over city staff. o Some concern that commissioners were not allowed to speak to staff. 5. There appears to be support for a strong mayor form of government: o The perception is that the commission has abdicated the powers, derived from the public, to an unelected city manager and that a strong mayor would be more accountable to the electorate. 6. Advisory Board Dynamics: o Attendees pointed out imbalances in the influence of various city advisory boards, advocating for a more equitable distribution of power and clearer delineation of responsibilities. o There is considerable support for bringing back advisory boards and empowering them. o It was suggested that a commissioner be part of every advisory board. 7. Commissioner Preparedness: o Concerns were raised about the preparedness of some city commissioners, with a call for enhanced training and resources to ensure informed decision-making. o Mention was made of City meetings lasting too long because commissioners asked so many questions and the time for public comment was dragged too late into the evening causing people who had to get up for work to leave before commenting. Other Suggestions for Improvement: • Enhanced Checks and Balances: o Implementing stronger oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability among city officials. • Increased Public Engagement: o There is much public discontent with the outcome of public engagement, feeling that their input goes unheeded. o There is a call for more town hall-style events and workshops to facilitate direct interaction between citizens and commissioners. • Election Reforms: o Proposals included electing backup commissioners to fill vacant seats instead of appointments, increasing the number of commissioners, and shifting from at-large elections to ward-based elections for better local representation. • Full time positions: o There is some interest in making the positions of mayor and commissioners full- time and higher paid. • Other concerns: o There is great discontent with the unfettered growth of Bozeman and the unaffordability of housing and a belief that the commission has not done enough to consider the public’s interest first over that of outside developers. o It was suggested that the City should hire local professionals rather than bringing in outsiders with no appreciation of local culture. o Bozemanites do not want national and international agendas overriding local needs and concerns. o People outside city limits who are affected by city policy feel disenfranchised. o There was a suggestion that key issues should be put to ballot. April 3, 2025 Public hearing summary Barb Cestero 17 people commented in person on April 3rd + 19 submitted written comments since we noticed the public hearing. I reviewed my notes from everyone’s comments during the hearing, rewatched some of the hearing and read all of the written comments to prepare this summary. 1. Themes: Summary of the meeting What’s working: ● Services being provided by City (mostly - some exceptions and certainly worry over long term sustainability given our growth) ● Hard work of the City staff recognized by several people ● The thoughtfulness of those who offered their input and ideas for improvement. Both those who came to the hearing and those who’ve submitted written comments since. Most people seem to understand what’s in the purview of the Study commission and what our role is. Not working: ● People don’t feel listened to; lack of trust in the Commission; and therefore people don’t feel adequately represented by the City Commission. Many desire more two way communication with commission. ● Public has a hard time participating; they don't feel they have the ability to influence/impact decisions. Don’t feel there is enough transparency. Interest in less formal ways to engage in decision making and with the Commission. ● People want to participate/be involved in local government; ● Perception that the Commission is not representative of the community - geographically or otherwise. Perception that the Commission listens more to the interests of developers rather than those of residents. ● Staff - commission relationship - perception of Commissioners not being able to talk to staff, get information from them. And how this concentrates power in the hands of city manager. ● Way vacancies on the Commission are filled (state law). ● Reduction in # of advisory boards cut out a way for people to participate and concentrated power in fewer people (or at least that’s perception). Concerns about the community development board specifically - perception that it has too much power and is not representative enough of the community. ● Neighborhood associations - while in the charter, not all neighborhoods have an association and their role is not clearly defined or understood. Ideas for improvement/ to explore: ● Who makes decisions? Which decisions are for the elected leaders and which decisions are made by staff – balance of power between legislative (commission) and executive (city mgr and staff). Differing expectations of residents about which decisions should be made by who. ●Definitely want to explore changes to commission - evaluate pros and cons of moving to ward/district elections; and pro’s/con’s of increasing the # of commissioners. Many offered suggestions for these types of changes to the commission as a way to improve representation of all parts of the community (geographically and interes wise); ●Need to explore balance of power between mayor and city manager - pros/cons of strong mayor or continuing with current city manager structure or some hybrid blending of the two. ●Need to look at compensation for commissioners and mayor - is it adequate for the workload/ time commitment. ●Advisory boards: power, authority, engagement - need reinvigoration - maybe shrank down to too few. ●Neighborhood Councils/Associations; could offer a way for more engagement. See Helena and Great Falls examples for different ways to structure. ●Creating less formal ways to engage (working groups that provide recommendations for later votes) 2. Given what we heard, what questions do you now have? ●Can we elect City Commission like the County Commission – commissioners have to live in a specific district but vote is still at large? (comment about gerrymandering - this could avoid that problem while ensuring greater representation?) ●Filling vacancies on Commission – what are state law requirements? Need greater transparency about this. ●Lots of questions about the role of mayor and balance of responsibilities/decision making between mayor; deputy mayor; commission as a whole and city manager/staff. More discussion about what’s on paper in the charter and what that looks like in practice. 3. What do you need to learn more about? What presentations would you like to hear and from whom? ●I would like to hear from the City Manager, City Staff and current commission with their answers to our 3 guiding questions. ●Structure and relationship of advisory boards and city commission. Talk to both the advisory boards and current commission. ●Wards/ districts vs. at large commission elections - what are the pro’s and con’s; the unintended consequences? What can we learn from other Cities on this front? Hear from Local Gov’t center and cities (Missoula, Billings) who elect their commissions by ward/district. ●Strong mayor – what other cities have a mayor as the executive administrator of the city? What are the pro’s, con’s, unintended consequences. (Missoula?) Public Hearing Write-up Summary What I heard at our public hearing were engaged community members that seek to improve their governance, much like the desire for the Study Commissioners themselves. With that being said, I do think there are some misunderstandings about processes and the interplay of shared powers, current operations, and how the Study Commission can address these issues. There are a number of topics that fall within those categories that may be within the purview of the Study Commission, though this avenue may not be the best to affect the change they wish to see. I think the comments heard can be compiled into broader categorical topics/issues for the Study Commission to discuss (see list below). •First, what I heard that is working from the commenters is the City’s day-to-day operations – water, sewer, etc. Not many speakers mentioned staff directly, except as it relates to development; I infer this to mean that most people are satisfied with the services provided. •Most commenters raised concerns for the areas they see not working; this is reasonable and expected. Some of the concerns regard what is identified below as “Issues.” These may not have direct actions that are able to address them. Some of them may be vague and difficult to pin down an approach or may be an end result that will need an upstream solution to help address. Other topics are within operations or are currently addressable by either the City Manager or the City Commission. There are a number of topics that are a series of choices, of which the Study Commission heard support for multiple options. I am exceedingly grateful for the individuals that highlighted how they would like the Study Commission to review or address, whether it be an assessment of function or to present the pros/cons and trade-offs necessary between the options. •For ideas of improvement, many topics were presented with a singular solution to the problem. As stated above, many of these singular solutions are in direct opposition (e. g., wards vs at-large). I think many of these topics will spur vigorous investigation by the Study Commission. For some of the topics that are currently within the power and operations as currently designated, in the spirit that the simplest solution is usually the correct one, I think it would be beneficial to hear about how those could be addressed without modification to the form and structure of the government. Given what I heard, I have questions for the City Attorney about which topics are outside the purview of the Study Commission or are already prescribed in state law. I have questions from staff experts on potential operational changes that may address some of the topics already within the current form and structure. I have additional questions of the public, on how they Mike Maas would like to participate in each of these topics and on what they would like to see as work product from the Study Commission. I think the Study Commission should request presentations on the following topics: • Funding – Finance Director Melissa Hodnett would be able to provide an overview of where revenue comes from, the budget, and answer questions from the Study Commission. • Land Use – Community Development Director Erin George and Community Development Manager Chris Saunders could present the interplay of state statutes, the Growth Policy (how it affects pace of growth and neighborhood protectionism), our current UDC, the UDC revision, and specifically the NCOD/Local Landmark Project. • City Boards – City Manager Chuck Winn and City Clerk Mike Maas could present the current board system/structure, assessment of current processes, and answer questions from the Study Commission. • Elections/City Commission – City Attorney Greg Sullivan could present on how the Study Commission can affect elections, review some of the more creative suggests on the City Commission (i.e. term limits, emeritus member, and “understudy” Commissioner), and topics that may conflict with state law. • Wards – Belgrade has a ward system; I’d like to hear from Gallatin County Elections and City of Belgrade staff on how those boundaries are adjusted to account for growth and population changes. • Data – GIS? For a wards system, how granular can we get our data? The Census tracts extend beyond City limits in some instances; legislative boundaries are even less useful in this regard. Data may be available from County Elections. • Neighborhoods/Neighborhood Association – Not as much a presentation, but I fully embrace the suggestion of a joint meeting with INC to discuss with the representatives directly about how they feel the program works, how they think the program should work, issues they have faced, and benefits/positive outcomes they have witnessed. • Mayor and City Manager – I think it would be impactful to hear how the balance between the City Manager and Mayor plays out by the two people currently in those roles; and, given the longevity of both, how they have seen it vary. • Mayor and Deputy Mayor – Our Deputy Mayor systems is highly unique; I’d like to hear from the two most recent people to get their thoughts on whether it is effective and/or beneficial to the City governance. • Ethics – The City Attorney’s Office and the City Clerks’ Office are instrumental in the implementation of the City’s ethics program. I think it would be beneficial for the Study Commission to hear more details about how it has evolved, how it operates, and why it is in the current structure that it is. List of Topics • Elections o Wards/District/At-large o Mayor as individual office/leading vote getter o Growth Policy? • Commission o Pay – PT/FT o Number o Term Limits o “Understudy” o Emeritus o Powers o Executive Mayor o Training requirements • Legislative/Executive/Staff Balance o Powers o Restrictions/Limitations o Role and Qualifications o Communication/Access • Neighborhoods o Mandatory Association Membership o Strengthen current neighborhoods o Neighborhoods Staffing • Currently Within Power and Form o City Commission Procedures/Operations  Work Sessions  Formality  Round Tables  Town Halls  Meeting Time and Length  Iterative Review of Government  Developments Using Public Resources o Comments/Feeling Heard/Participation  Commenter Time  Public/Commission Communication  Engagement  Dialog  Provide Information o Recall o Ballot for “Issues” o Boards  Term Limits  Boards Not Equal  Working Groups/Ad Hoc  Formality • Issues o Trust o Mutual Respect o Lobbying o “Culture” o Accountability o Executive Invested in Community o Staff/Public Divide