Community Impact Statement Re: CF# 18-0467

           The Board approved this CIS by a vote of:  Yea(12) Nay(1) Abstain(0) Ineligible(0) Recusal(0)
        Date of NC Board Action: 08/13/2018
        Type of NC Board Action: For if Amended
        Impact Information
        Date: 08/14/2018
        Update to a Previous Input: No
        Directed To: City Council and Committees
        Council File Number: 18-0467
        Agenda Date:
        Item Number:
Summary: We are “FOR” half of the items as written in the proposed reforms and are either NOT FOR or request more information on the balance.
We thank Councilmember Ryu for these proposed changes to assist the efficiency of NCs.
We are FOR:
1. Uniform voting age
2. Training for planning and land-use committee Chairs & Vice Chairs
3. $10,000 rollover
4. Holding elections on same day for all NCs
5. Developing a process to assist NCs with accessing shared space in City facilities
6. Developing best practices
The items we are “NOT FOR” as written include:
1. Amending City Charter to change names – we have mixed response. Most feel it is unnecessary while some believe this will help identify the 2 groups as City Depts.
2. NO CONSENSUS on amending to remove “Community Interest Stakeholder”. We need more information with more defined description of stakeholder.
3. Removing reference to “Selection” – We have historically favored the selection process due to problems experienced when the City Clerk was responsible.
4. NO to one time review process overseen by BONC. DONE should work with the few Neighborhood Councils that have issues. We do not want BONC to have control over bylaws of well functioning Neighborhood Councils.
5. NO CONSENSUS to removing Section 5.485.h of Chapter 88 – There is not enough information provided for us to recommend this change and we have strong concerns over administration.
6. NO to the last paragraph developing points of contacts – Communication between city depts and NCs must be a 2-way engagement. The way this is written it appears the one of communication is one sided, giving city depts access to NC sharing information, however, this doe not appear to have a component that allows NCs to have a single point of contact when needed to communicate NC concerns. City Depts should be compelled to have open 2-way access as needed.