October 19th NART meeting recap

Attendees:

Monica Melkonian, Cheryl Howard, Valerie Pharr, Jim Hamilton, Chad Sage,

James Dorofi, Don Leonard,

Bill Gregoricus, Meeting Chair

Guests:

Anne Aurand

Mary Winters

Mayor Roats

Meeting began with a discussion of The NART priorities presentation to City Council on October 18th by James and Monica.

  • The agreed upon top two priorities, transportation& livability, with examples thataffectall the NA’s were presented
  • Also presented to the council was the issue to explore the formation ofan elevated / in-code structure for NART, to further improve 2-way communications on policies, practices and outcomes.
  • The council was engaged and the presentation was positively received.

Here are a few take-aways fromthe group discussion on the issue of forming an “elevated” neighborhoodadvisory structure

Generally, there was a positive and productive discussion highlighted by Mayor Roats’ desire to see what he described as an “elevated” for the role of the NA’s.

Key points, by the Mayor,included

The desire for more effective and strategic two-way communication between the NAs and the City Council/staff.

Be able to provide and well-organized and stable multi-neighborhood-focused platform from which to develop and share specific strategic concerns.

Provide a neighborhood-focused support and communications platform for city staff when developing plans for neighborhood implementation.

Mary Winters, City Attorney, then explained the differences between a permanent committee and temporary ad hoc committee.

A permanent committee is a structure that becomes part of the City’s municipal code.

A temporary or “ad hoc” committee is formed by resolution.

Either structure can:

Make recommendations to the City Council

Be assigned responsibilities by Council

Have its roles and responsibilities established in writing.

Formation of an ‘in-code” neighborhoodadvisory structure has the following advantages:

  1. Elevatesand routinizes NA participation and access to the City Council’s management deliberations and processes.
  1. Placesan NA-focused structure on equal codified footing with otherformally recognized permanent committees (e.g. affordable housing committee, Bend Economic Advisory DevelopmentCommittee).
  1. Be able to create its own leadership guidelines.
  1. Can provide a comprehensive approach when bringing issues forward to Council and City staff
  1. Provide a “2-way” neighborhood by neighborhood outreach, feedback capability for the City Council, the City Manager and city staff.
  1. Provide a NA-focused additional research mechanism to augment / support city staff’s program analysis and development of plans to support Council goals.
  1. Assist the City Council in assessing project funding prioritization.
  1. Would likely heighten NA membership recruitment and citizen participation

Notes:

  1. Once in code, this structure’s positon with city government cannot be altered without the Council following existing procedures to make changes in the code
  1. Inclusion into such an In-Code or Ad Hoc structure is not mandatory for a Neighborhood Association.
  1. A codified or Ad Hoc structure would not diminish the autonomy or current roles of an NA.
  1. Current NA legal, structure, by-laws and or board of director’s role and or responsibilities in their respective NA organizations would not be impacted.
  1. Current land-use provisos will not be altered/ diminished in any way.
  1. An NA still retains its singular capability to lobby the Council for any specific project.

It was also discussed that:

Membership and specific duties of any advisory committee structure will be addressed as the concept moves forward.

NART, along with Joshua Romero (and Mary Winters, if needed) will review other Oregon NA models. Visits to other locations may be included.

Conclusion:

To determine if there is NART consensus to proceed with the examination of whether or not to elevate the NART (or some portion of NART) to an in-code/ad hoc role in the governance structure of the City of Bend, the following action is requested:

Have each Chair be able to announce its board decision, @ the November 16th meeting on whether their NA is in favor of pursuing the “elevated” role of NART, as described here.

At that meeting, other points that may need clarification will be addressed by agenda.

If it is determined to move forward, along with any efforts by NA Chairs to research what other Oregon cities have structured for the Neighborhood Associations, Mary Winters expressed her willingness to help draft an actual framework that could becodified in city code (permanent committee) or resolution (ad hoc committee).