HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/12/2016 - NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIONSDATE:
STAFF:
April 12, 2016
Josh Weinberg, Sencior City Planner
Delynn Coldiron, Neighborhood Services Manager
Clay Frickey, Associate Planner
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Neighborhood Connections.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the Neighborhood Connections project is to develop and implement a best practice neighborhood
engagement program in Fort Collins. This program is intended to enhance the quality of life for residents through
increased connection, communication, collaboration, and co-creation with the City. The program is intended to
build unity within neighborhoods, cultivate leadership capacity throughout the community, provide systems of
support, and ensure individuals have a voice and the ability to influence what happens in their neighborhoods and
surrounding areas. Through this program, Fort Collins residents will gain an enhanced way to engage with the
City and have opportunity to participate in creating and maintaining a healthy, vibrant, and dynamic community.
After researching best practices and conducting public outreach, staff is ready to initiate a prototype program this
summer for six to ten months, get further feedback, and adjust for optimal impact. The proposed model is a semi-
formal structure balancing multiple factors, including: intensity of effort required by the City and each
neighborhood to run the program, and the number and size of participating neighborhoods. As the prototype
program is rolled out, increased resources may be required to achieve the level of neighborhood livability
envisioned by Council.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What feedback does Council have for staff moving forward with a pilot program?
2. What additional components, strategies, outcomes, and measures Council would like to see incorporated?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Public Engagement Summary
April 12, 2016 Page 2
This project has been driven by public involvement, with the aim of developing a community-based program. Staff
conducted a comprehensive outreach effort to understand the community’s vision for neighborhoods. See
Attachment 2 for more details regarding public outreach.
Best Practice Research
Staff studied a wide range of neighborhood engagement programs. In order to understand the various models
that exist, and those that are working well for other communities, staff identified fourteen cities to study that align
with similar demographics to Fort Collins, or that have strong reputations for successful neighborhood
engagement models and/or other exceptional community engagement programs. Every community studied has
their own version and, in general, such programs function on a spectrum of what staff refers to as “informal” to
“formal.” See Attachment 3 for highlights of each program.
Next Steps
Based on community feedback and best practice research, staff believes that implementation of a flexible
neighborhood engagement program, offering enhanced resources such as staff liaison, leadership training,
priority planning, and participatory budgeting/grant funding will be a good fit for the neighborhoods of Fort Collins.
This approach will realize the program goals of co-creation between the City and neighborhoods, building
connections within neighborhoods, and provide neighborhood representatives a forum to share opportunities and
challenges with representatives from other neighborhoods.
28 residents have expressed interest in piloting in a program and, during the proposed pilot phase, six to twelve
neighborhoods (from geographically distinct portions of the city) would be chosen to participate. The pilot program
duration would be six to ten months, in which time staff will evaluate staffing and resource needs. Neighborhood
Services and Planning staff will coordinate the pilot program, in assisting neighborhood leader selection,
developing content for the monthly neighborhood leader meetings, and liaising with individual neighborhood
groups. As the program expands, graduates from the City’s Lead 1.0 leadership development program will have
the opportunity to work as neighborhood staff liaisons.
Specific components of the pilot program, which will begin in June 2016, will include:
Hold initial neighborhood meetings
- Identification of neighborhood leaders/representatives and boundaries
Monthly meetings between leaders/representatives and City officials and staff
- Roll out leadership training program
- Provide training on asset mapping and neighborhood project prioritization
Optional monthly or quarterly neighborhood meetings to disseminate information, begin priority planning,
and inspire community building.
The pilot program will focus on four key strategies, with associated activities to implement the strategies, and
methods to measure the success of each:
April 12, 2016 Page 3
1. Strategy: Improve neighborhood information on City programs, initiatives, policies, and pilot
projects
Associated Activities:
- Consolidated messaging and notifications to neighborhoods on: development review, neighborhood
meetings, Council listening sessions, Police Department updates, etc.
- Explore dedicated City liaison to neighborhoods
Potential Measures:
- Number of touch points with neighborhoods
- Amount of online traffic around resources
- Number of requests for notifications.
3. Strategy: Build leadership capacity in community
Associated Activities:
- Deliver in-person leadership training courses with assistance from local resources
- Provide online leadership resources
Potential Measures:
- Participation in programs
- Shift in resident participation in their neighborhoods and in City processes
- Quality of community conversations among residents that are already engaged
4. Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to effectively organize and connect
Associated Activities:
- Conduct monthly meetings of representatives of all participating neighborhoods
- Topics that are of interest to everyone
- Includes training and informal networking/connecting
- Require participating neighborhoods be inclusive of all property owners and tenants
Potential Measures:
- Neighborhood representation / participation at meetings and events
- Feedback on effectiveness / flexibility of program
5. Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to positively and effectively influence planning
Associated Activities:
- Encourage proactive neighborhood planning through sub-area plan implementation, asset mapping,
and budget prioritization.
Potential Measures:
- Neighborhood actions on planning objectives
- Feedback from citizens on planning and implementation effectiveness
Staff plans to submit a Neighborhood Livability Enhancement offer as part of the 2017-2018 Budgeting for
Outcomes process that will recommend the addition of staffing to assist with this and other program and
April 12, 2016 Page 4
enforcement efforts. With regard to this project, the additional staffing will be integral in the pilot phases of the
project, as well as in the design, implementation and ongoing support of the final program(s) developed.
Anticipated duties include assisting with liaison duties between the City and neighborhoods, providing support to
the neighborhoods for marketing, outreach and technical efforts, supporting and/or administering grant funding,
and assisting with various neighborhood meetings and/or trainings throughout the year.
Conclusion
When citizens engage with a city and each other, everyone wins. According to urban theorist Richard Florida, a
person’s place of residence is a fundamental contributor to a person’s well-being. He believes that communities
that work to create a unique sense of place, that foster strong social relationships, that care about and treat
residents fairly, and that share decision-making and collaborate with residents on the items of importance to them,
are highly effective in creating cities that people love. Additionally, Peter Kageyama’s recent work in For the Love
of Cities and Love Where You Live talks about cities that make themselves easier to connect with become more
attractive for residents and produce more residents that desire to be involved and engaged. Kageyama introduces
the concept of “co-creation” to define the specific type of partnership between cities and residents that develops
places people love. Staff is excited about the opportunities this project presents in terms of co-creating with our
community at a neighborhood scale, enhancing sense of place, and collaborating on important projects.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Overview of Neighborhood Connections (PDF)
2. Public Outreach Summary (PDF)
3. Best Practice Research Findings (PDF)
4. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
What is it? Revolving Communication and Support
A customized model, unique to Fort Collins, created from a compilation of nationwide best
practices and community input to strengthen communication and access to resources
19 communities studied including 8 site visits across the United States
Neighborhood groups that provide a point of contact and information for their neighbors,
other neighborhoods, and the City of Fort Collins enhancing livability
Method to enhance co-creation, co-management, and public engagement
Why do we need it? Awareness & Utilization of Resources
Citizen Survey indicated the 87% of people receive news via word of mouth
o Help facilitate and be a part of those discussions
Dozens of resources committed to neighborhoods but majority of people stated they were
“unfamiliar” with the programs
Problem isn’t a lack of resources but a lack of utilization and awareness
Clear path of communication for people about the issues that affect them most
Meet people when, how, and where they prefer or need to be reached
Help eliminate barriers for harder-to-reach populations and between neighborhoods
Community Outreach Involvement Every Step of the Way
Total reach: Over 500 people (not including social media)
o Questionnaire – online and print in Spanish and English
o Community Issues Forum discussion topic
o Presentations to community organizations
o Community Advisory Groups
o Leadership Training Events
o Focus Groups
We asked:
o What issues would your neighborhood organize around?
o What should the program achieve?
o What should the program avoid?
What Do People Want? The Fort Collins Model
Majority wants more formal interaction with the City and each other
Most interested in:
o Leadership Training
o Council of Neighborhoods
o Neighborhood Planning
o Participatory Budgeting
o Expanded Neighborhood Grants
ATTACHMENT 1
Public Outreach Summary
In all, over 500 community members participated in shaping the Neighborhood Connections program.
Outreach included:
x A Community Advisory Group of 20 citizens representing all areas of the City to provide
feedback on potential engagement models
x Online questionnaire
x Focus group meetings to vet elements of the neighborhood engagement model
x Discussion at the Community Issues Forum
x 2 leadership training events focused on neighborhood engagement
All of the outreach conducted sought to answer three key questions:
1. What issues would your neighborhood organize around?
2. What should the Neighborhood Connections program achieve?
3. What should the Neighborhood Connection program avoid?
Citizens established clear outlines for the program with their responses:
- A more formal relationship with the City to improve access to and knowledge of City
departments and programs
- Additional opportunities to engage with the City and increase awareness in the community as a
whole
- Feedback on neighborhood boundaries, requirements for groups, and potential elements and
resources for the program.
Citizens established clear outlines for the program with their responses:
What Neighborhood Connections Can Enhance in Neighborhoods
x Community building
x Transparent engagement with the City
x Inter/intra-neighborhood connections
x Development activity
What Neighborhood Connections Should Achieve
x Improved communications and connections within neighborhoods, between neighborhoods,
and between neighborhoods and the City of Fort Collins
x Proactive system to manage issues and projects
x Capacity building for neighborhood members and leaders
x Give neighborhoods more prominent voice early on in projects
x Flexible system that can meet the needs of various kinds of neighborhoods
ATTACHMENT 2
What Neighborhood Connections Should Avoid
x High barriers for participation
x A top down approach where the City requires neighborhood organizations to receive
information or access to programs that neighborhoods can currently access
x Creating conflict between HOAs and neighborhood groups
x If people do not know about the program, they will not be able to use it
Questionnaire Results
Neighborhoods would like a more formal relationship with the City to improve access to and knowledge
of City departments and programs. As part of the outreach for Neighborhood Connections, staff
developed a questionnaire to gauge interest in organizing neighborhoods in a more formal way. 294
community members responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire results have provided key
insights into how community members hope their neighborhoods can interact with the City and the
sorts of issues they would like to work on as a neighborhood. According to the questionnaire:
x Nearly 80% of respondents said their neighborhood interacts with the City in an informal way.
x Almost 50% of respondents said they would like their neighborhood’s relationship with the City to
be somewhat formal or formal.
x Many respondents expressed they did not have sufficient access to various City departments.
x Most respondents were unfamiliar with the neighborhood-oriented City programs identified in the
questionnaire.
Citizens Survey Results
Programs that provide additional opportunities to engage with the City will increase awareness in the
community as a whole. The biennial Fort Collins Citizens Survey identified 87% of respondents find out
about City issues, services, and programs through word of mouth. The prototype program is a way for
the City to enhance its connections with neighborhoods
Focus Group Results
Participants provided feedback on neighborhood boundaries, requirements for groups, and potential
elements and resources for the program. The purpose of the Neighborhood Focus Groups was to reach
out to a broader audience to provide feedback on potential elements of the Neighborhood Connections
program. Over 60 interested neighborhood residents participated in these focus groups. Participants
discussed the following topics in depth:
x Size of neighborhood boundaries
x Minimum requirements for developing a recognized neighborhood group
x Potential resources and elements of the program
After discussing these topics in small groups, the participants gave their opinion on the program as a
whole and their level of excitement for the program. Over half of participants indicated they plan to be
involved with the program in some capacity upon its formation.
2QOLQH4XHVWLRQQDLUH5HVXOWV
1
$$
1
$$ "%
1
"8
1
"
: 7 $ " 2
: 7 $ " 2 "
"
:
$ "2
:
$ "2
&.
:
$ "
&""1
&
"
&
& 7
& $$
"
&
!
&" "
"& $$7 $ " "" -
&" "
"& $$
&" "
" $$
6" "& $$
6" "& $$0
6" "& $$ 2
"
#% '
"
!
!
! $" 2 4
!
"
) ! " "
!
!
"
!
" 2$
) 2"(
; 2
$ %"
2$
" <7& $$
$
$
"
$
"*0$$" %
",
) $
"
$
>0$$"
""
$ >&
$$%
"
" % "
$ .
@2 "
$
'
$$ &
:$"
2
$
% $$
"7 4" -
"
"'
$
"
"'
" = $$
" "
"
) "
"
"
"= $$
$$
" 2
$
< "
< '
< %
< " "%
< $&
<
"
B"
%
= % ":$/-" @$$
= $$ : "
0
"0 $
0$$" - 4&.
0 "
0 $"
0 $7
0
0%
07 $
07 $
E 4;F 3
4F
)4F G
<
$ G
4-
"
7 $
%
"* 44&
." 8
%
",5
E4;F
4F
)4F
;
E D4DF G
;4)F )
<
$ 3
)4-
$ "
%
"5
ED4DF
;4)F
G
% % $ %
.-
2
'
" %
"
'
" %
"@$" %
6"7 $ 34F ))
"7 $ ))4F G
7 $ G4F
=
7 $ 4F )
<
$ ;3
4&
$
"
" % '
% "$
5
6"7 $34F
"7 $))4F
7 $G4F
=
7 $4F
6"7 $ 4;F )
"7 $ )34F
7 $ )4)F 3
=
7 $ 4;F D
<
$ G
34&
$
$
"
" % '
5
6"7 $4;F
"7 $)34F
7 $)4)F
=
7 $4;F
$ "
"
$ $
! "
$
"*,"
"*
@ " ",JB"
% J
4F 4F 4F F
0
"8"2$ 1 $
&
" I 4F 4F 4F F
6 %
"
"7 % $" %
*
> $
4F 4F 4F F
77 %"
4F )
%
2 $ )4F G
" 4F
% $2 )D4DF
$ ;4F )D
'
"> " 4;F G
. 4F 3
<
$ G
*+,*
!7 $" ;
'
%%
'
"% $
2 " % '
>
8>$
$ $
$>
0 7 %
""+
"K"4.
"
"
C$ "
E ;4F )3
)4F )G
68"
7+- 4F
<
$ G
4-
%
""%
"
% $ +- 5
E;4F
)4F
68"
7+- 4F
'
"
$ " 4F
$ % ;4F )
7 D4F
6"7 % 4F )
< "
" D4DF
%
"
%
" " "% ""%
"
$ %
"
1 .
< $%%
$
" "@
" "
"
/" '
$ 77 40 $$ "
"" $
$ %
"
" 7'
$ $ 4
" $ " %
""$
4& " $
7 $
40
5
;4F
)F
)4F
;4F
34F
3D4)F
DN4F
7 "
" 4F
B" ; 4F
; 4F
) 4F
) 4F D
;4F
3 4F 3
3D 4)F
DN 4F
7 "
" 4F
<
$ G
)/4
4D
- 4
2+ D4
3
2$ )43F
1$ 343F ;
. 4DF
7 "
" )4F G
<
$ G
40 % "
" 7
5
2$)43F
1$343F
. 4DF
7 "
" )4F
D
" 4DF
$% 4F
&
L/GGG $ )4F
L/;GGG 4F
LG/;D/GGG 34F D
L;;/G/GGG )4F ;G
L/LG/GGG 4)F )3
L/ 4F D
7 "
" 4F 3)
<
$ G)
D40
""$
$ "%
5
L/GGG $)4F
L/;GGGF
LG/;D/GGG3F
L;;/G/GGG)4F
L/LG/GGG4)F
L/ 4F
7 "
" 4F
G
)
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
48
Table 31: Question 19
If you answered 'less effort' for any of the items in question 17, what specific services and amenities would you like to
see reduced?
Percent of
respondents
Transportation 24%
Parks, recreation and open space 3%
Neighborhood and community services 26%
Police 9%
Government organization and functions overall 24%
Recycling and environmental sustainability efforts 19%
Economic growth 12%
Table 32: Question 20
Thinking about the future of Fort Collins, what do you think should be the top three priorities for the
City within the next five years?
Percent of respondents making a
comment
Economy/ Business 39%
Environment 30%
Neighborhoods/ Housing 34%
Safety/ Police 13%
Culture, Parks & Recreation 17%
Transportation/ Traffic 63%
General Government 5%
Other 25%
*The column labeled "Percent of respondents" includes all respondents to the survey. The column labeled "Percent of respondents making a comment" includes only those who responded to
question
19.The total may exceed 100% as respondents were able to write in multiple services.
Table 33: Question 21
Please rate the City's performance in each of the following areas. Very good Good Average Bad Very bad Total
Welcoming citizen involvement 22% 47% 27% 4% 1% 100%
Listening to citizens 14% 36% 36% 9% 5% 100%
Informing citizens 18% 41% 31% 7% 2% 100%
Providing opportunities to participate in government activities 15% 40% 35% 9% 2% 100%
Providing emergency information 21% 42% 33% 3% 1% 100%
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
49
Table 34: Question 22
Please indicate how frequently, if ever, you or other members of your household use each
of the following sources of information regarding City issues, services and programs. Always Frequently Sometimes Never Total
Fort Collins local cable channel 14 1% 2% 19% 78% 100%
Online video of cable channel 14 on www.fcgov.com/cable14 0% 2% 9% 88% 100%
City's website (www.fcgov.com) 7% 19% 54% 21% 100%
“City News” (insert with utility bill) 12% 21% 33% 35% 100%
Newsletters or brochures from City departments 7% 15% 40% 38% 100%
Tracks and Trails (the guide to natural areas activities) 8% 25% 35% 32% 100%
“Recreator” (guide to recreation programs) 11% 27% 32% 30% 100%
Word of mouth 14% 39% 34% 13% 100%
Newspaper (print or online) 16% 25% 31% 28% 100%
Radio 8% 21% 34% 37% 100%
Television news 11% 16% 30% 43% 100%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Nextdoor, etc.) 10% 20% 29% 40% 100%
Fort Collins Idea Lab (idealab.fcgov.com) 1% 1% 7% 91% 100%
City of Fort Collins mobile apps (Access Fort Collins, Digital Publications, Recreator) 1% 3% 15% 80% 100%
City booth at local events 2% 5% 34% 59% 100%
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
129
Table 136: Question 21 by Geographic Area of Residence
Please rate the City
performance in the
following area. (Average
rating 0=very bad, 100=very
good).
Geographic area of residence
Northeast East
Central
South of
Harmony Northwest/CSU
West
Central Overall
Welcoming citizen involvement 70 69 73 78 68 71
Listening to citizens 56 60 62 67 59 61
Informing citizens 69 68 66 70 62 67
Providing opportunities to
participate in government
activities 66 60 68 65 62 64
Providing emergency
information 68 70 72 73 65 70
Table 137: Question 22 by Geographic Area of Residence
Please indicate how
frequently, if ever, you or
other members of your
household use each of the
following sources of
information regarding City
issues, services and programs.
(Percent at least sometimes).
Geographic area of residence
Northeast East
Central
South of
Harmony Northwest/CSU
West
Central Overall
Fort Collins local cable channel 14 30% 25% 18% 18% 22% 22%
Online video of cable channel 14
on www.fcgov.com/cable14 20% 11% 10% 11% 10% 12%
City's website (www.fcgov.com) 85% 74% 80% 70% 88% 79%
“City News” (insert with utility bill) 61% 69% 71% 49% 72% 65%
Newsletters or brochures from
City departments 68% 57% 61% 54% 69% 61%
Tracks and Trails (the guide to
natural areas activities) 75% 60% 75% 65% 69% 68%
“Recreator” (guide to recreation
programs) 83% 65% 78% 54% 74% 70%
Word of mouth 96% 84% 87% 78% 92% 87%
Newspaper (print or online) 79% 78% 71% 62% 73% 72%
Radio 76% 64% 62% 59% 62% 63%
Television news 62% 58% 65% 43% 58% 57%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter,
Nextdoor, etc.) 62% 59% 54% 62% 62% 60%
Fort Collins Idea Lab
(idealab.fcgov.com) 8% 6% 5% 13% 12% 9%
City of Fort Collins mobile apps
City of Fort Collins Citizen Survey Report of Results
November 2015
142
Front Range Benchmark Comparisons
Table 156: Quality of Life and Community Benchmarks
Please rate Fort Collins as a
community on each of the items
listed below.
Fort Collins
average
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to Front
Range benchmark
Overall, as a place to live 89 3 27 Much higher
Availability of affordable quality
housing 38 15 17 Much lower
Quality of public schools 82 2 15 Much higher
As a place to raise children 87 4 28 Much higher
As a place to retire 79 2 29 Much higher
Community acceptance of all people 72 1 20 Much higher
Overall quality of life in Fort Collins 85 3 32 Much higher
Table 157: City Neighborhood Benchmark
Please rate the quality of your
neighborhood on each of the
items listed below.
Fort Collins
average
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
Front Range
benchmark
Your neighborhood as a place to live 83 6 26 Much higher
Table 158: Overall Safety Benchmark
Please rate Fort Collins as a
community on each of the items
listed below.
Fort Collins
average
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to Front
Range benchmark
Overall safety of residents 81 5 15 Much higher
Table 159: Personal Safety Benchmarks
Please tell us how safe you feel
in each of the following areas in
Fort Collins.
Fort Collins
average
1
EĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ&ŽĐƵƐ'ƌŽƵƉ^ƵŵŵĂƌLJ
Feb. 4, 6, and March 7, 2016
Session 1: What was the most compelling reason for this developing program. (we did not have
dedicated time in small groups to discuss this, so this only includes notes if it the purpose come up
in discussions on its own).
1) A few of the group members were interested in how neighborhoods working together as a part of this
program would positively contribute to the climate action plan (reducing carbon footprint). Those working on
the climate action plan want to further their processes and build off of the work that is being done via
Neighborhood Engagement. *not listed on sheet
2) Our group was also very concerned with improving connections between City and neighborhoods/within
neighborhoods (D) *on sheet
Liaisons was definitely the main focus of our group. All but two people at our table thought that it would be
great to have a liaison and that was mostly want they wanted to learn more about.
We didn't talk about this specifically but I saw a lot of these reasons come up. The main topic we talked
about was the idea of a liaison as resource. This probably goes with A. identify/build city programs/services
neighborhoods want and C. productive structure to address challenging issues most.
However, small town feel was brought up specifically as well!
Session 2: So what do you think about using census tracts to help define neighborhoods? How
would it work with your neighborhoods in terms of supporting the goals of this project?
Some of the boundaries don't make sense. Also there are natural barriers that cut of some parts off from
other parts in the neighborhood i.e. Linden Neighborhood.
The markers are somewhat confusing.
Hard to read the proposed boundaries that would define the neighborhood.
Map needs to be better.
If the neighborhood was better defined it would be easier to connect with others and work towards a
common sense of community.
Participant disagreed with using census tracts, arguing:
-Communities are created from shared values and usually arise from development plans that have kept
their names over time.
-Census tracts may not work well, asked how the census is set up.
-Distinguished how apartment complexes/renters have a different lifestyle than house owners. And that
renters come and go and have different priorities for the city versus home owners. Feels using census
tracts may bound these people into one district
-Does't want to census tracts to bound too many communities into one
Participant responded:
-Doesn't want to feel segregated from neighbors. Saying that renters have different priorities for city and
thus don't matter and shouldn't be included is insensitive. Homeowner doesn't want to feel separated from
apartment/rental owners.
Another Participant added:
-Not any single system is optimal
-Scaling communities is hard
-From a community members perspective the boundaries don't make a big difference
In general:
-All agreed that when a connected neighborhood counsel registered for the program and was labeled under
2
a certain "boundary," that this boundary should be fluid because it would probably shift with time and
neighborhoods could restructure
-Possible criteria's: Streets, Schools
-If we put another layer of administrations that act as medium to communicate to the city it could create
more bureaucracy and lead to less neighborhood communication
-How many representatives is to many?
-Should use Next Door Neighborhood app to get statistics on who people consider their neighbors
Whats the basis for this?
-Geographic or demographic census?
-What is the defining measurement of this census data? -Population?
-Its going to be hard to break down preexisting informal neighborhood systems and structures
1) It is too early to identify whether or not the census divisions will work
2) The census lines may split up the neighborhoods unequally (unequal representation)
3) There were concerns about the populations of the small neighborhood boundaries. We talked about how
a neighborhood of mostly college students would be different than ones with mostly families, or military
families etc. This all impacts neighborhood relationships
4) There was a concern for the dynamic of having apartment complexes and high-end homes located so
closely together and being captured by the same census boundary
5) Some liked the idea of keeping boundaries small to promote inner neighborhood connections, and "small
town feel"
• you can’t just use these lines because they run through established neighborhoods
• census lines don’t indicate a neighborhood
• This is critical, the boundaries and neighborhoods should be decided by the people who live in them- a
good way to start cohesiveness
o To do this, you need to organize meetings to talk
o In North College, there are many postal addresses, so banners would be easier to spread word about
visioning process and defining our neighborhood
o This process needs to reach far deeper into the individual neighborhoods
• Neighborhoods are a big identifier and Fort Collins does not have that
• Questions about Down Town are city wide issue but this is just a neighborhood issue
• It is important to do this now as population grows
• To marry consistency and flexibility together you would need the city to tell the neighborhood that they
need to figure out how to manage change so that it’s not managed by someone else and it is not
unmanaged since the city is going to change so much
• Allow people to be able to define their own neighborhood
• The quantity of neighborhoods represented seems do-able
o That would be about 5,000 people per neighborhood
• It’s not the city’s issue
o Neighborhoods need to come up with their own models because one won’t work for all
• Are geographic boundaries really what have meaning?
• Resources are likely to dictate how many neighborhoods “connections” can be established.
Some people felt that these wouldn't necessarily represent the interests of all people. The idea of school
districts as making up some of these neighborhoods and how that could present an appropriate size came
up as well. One man felt that the census lines that were drawn wouldn't work because their community was
very divided into a younger and older population and her didn't see any changing that.
Our group talked about different ideas of ways to divide up neighborhoods to try and potentially find a
middle ground between the current next door and census tract boundaries.
1. Overlaying the council districts into the current map and see where these council districts come in and
then break up from there
-found issue in the big difference in demographics in some neighborhoods (specifically talking about Avery
Park in East and West areas with East being young renters)
-other areas seemed like they could mesh together very well (specifically Harvest Park, Timber Creek,
Sage, Fossil Lake and that area
3
2. This brought up the idea of how families are important in these districting topics and thought creating
boundaries based on schools for the neighborhoods could be a good starting point (came to conclusion that
4 high schools makes areas too big but using middle schools could be a viable option --> council district w/
school district subset)
-Use information about schools and area dynamics but can't forget about issues that come with rental areas
when basing boundaries off of schools, when you get closer to CSU and Old Town the school boundaries
don't work as well
-Demographics seem to drive census organization while communication drives next door, need to find data
that overlaps these two areas to create common neighborhood boundaries (someone pointed out taxes and
laws)
-Making better communication between school administration and neighborhood engagement to foster
better relationships between schools, neighborhoods, and the city
-Commercial interest also come into play though, need to think of dynamic changes in the various
communities
-Need to be careful about not becoming too discriminatory, each area is different so when talking about this
issue it's hard when each focuses on their own experience in their neighborhood
Overall, seemed very opposed. Talked much more about utilizing people to determine neighborhood
boundaries. Also discussed using geographical markers like parks/natural spaces and/or elementary
schools
Q: What do you think about using census tracts to help define neighborhoods?
1. Census tracts are variable in size
a. They are population sensitive
b. My neighborhood, Water Glen, is huge and I don’t know if there would be a connection in a
neighborhood that large
i. It would need to be a more natural dispersion
2. If it is supposed to be about meeting people then the census is pretty overwhelming
a. The little green boxes (nextdoor) would probably be too small of groups and be hard to manage for the
city
3. Older neighborhoods that are very established will not want to be disrupted
Q: Supporting goals?
1. Census tract makes sense for leadership but not for the small town feel
2. Varying areas of traffic/roads are blocked due to games and university events while causes different
issues in certain parts of the city
Q: What about letter C?
1. If you are a tiny neighborhood could be hard to think about the city in perspective
a. For example, there are homeless people in Fort Collins even if you never see them
2. Get overlay of community representation
3. Might not provide structure but could be solution based
4. Issues are different in certain areas of town but it would help for everyone to work together to solve these
issues
Q: What about F?
1. I like using an ambassador for neighborhoods, maybe not census but nextdoor instead
Q: Are there too many neighborhoods?
1. Sounds like that is more for city leadership and doesn’t help
neighborhoods to be this big
Why? -A, What? -B, How? -C.
C: + all neighborhoods should focus on elementary schools (D) as boundaries... can it work in foco?
A: + manageable small groupings (meaningful conclusions), organization/communication.
C: - works for some (census tracts) but not all. How have the boundaries been chosen so far? ... closer to
old town being smaller (boundaries)?
C: - how do rental vs owner residential properties affect involvement/boundaries?
D: - the spread of information regarding current events (dissemination) happens through schools. what if no
kids in school?
C: + divided by churches? community centers? libraries? maintenance/safety. ...Pinpoint landmarks on
4
map. key of points of community activity.
-Generally dislike
-school districts would work better because that's who I interact with because of my kids
-problems with interests would overcome census borders
-could be helpful because they already exist
-boundaries that don't cater to development level and socioeconomic is an issue
-they need to take natural barriers into consideration. Certain neighborhoods don't mesh because there is a
different vibe on other sides of river and natural areas
-start with city council districts and divide from there.
-There are too many census boundaries
Session 3: Before we get into specifics, what do you think generally about having some minimum
requirements to officially become a Connected Neighborhood? Will they help us achieve our goals?
It allows for some form of structure.
I don't get it, why would you register with the city if it's a neighborhood organization?
Are the minimum number of group members enough?
What about those in the neighborhood who choose not to participate?
They have the right not to participate if that is their choice. However, if they are forced to pay for something
they did not agree to, there may be conflict.
-Voting annually keeps things, groups, information fresh and is a way to mobilize neighborhood needs
-Voting once a year would promote proactive vs. reactive goal
-Boundaries at the time of registration should be fluid over time because it will probably change
1) It depends on which model we go with-the formal vs. informal will work differently (better/worse) in
different neighborhoods
2) Requirements, such as training for new comers, would be beneficial
3) There will need to be some formal requirements for groups to meet before participating
The requirements didn't really come up in our discussions, I think they just assumed that would fall
together. They really wanted to talk about the resources. One man from our table didn't want a liaison but
wanted everything else and didn't think they should have to be appointed a liaison if they already have a
good relationship with their city councilman. He was the only person at our table who felt that way.
-In 100% residential areas, it can be hard to engage rental communities who don't stay long, have separate
amenities in facilities. This makes them hard to integrate into the rest of the community and creates a lack
of stability with constant changes in neighbors.
-Need to connect with stable neighborhoods or property managers to meet goals and have people who are
around enough.
-Should be mix of all variety of homes in Fort Collins but generally it seems that this is an ideal (doesn't
work as well in varying communities.)
-Formal model drawbacks --> would be good for creating structure but would need interaction (HOAs have
formality and great where they are used --> could build off of this structure)
1. Yes, there does need to be bare minimums and guidelines but I think there also needs to be a hybrid
model not so this or that. Give more structure and options
2. Some will want more and some will want less engagement which could make some of these
requirements hard to meet
Formal - 1, Informal - 2, Requirements - 3.
1: + grants specifically to allow for formal structural change... + forces people to engage, - what if thy don't
5
participate?, what's the availability of the grants?
3: + requirements are good overall... +how to maintain accountability?
Minimum # of group members requirement: why not proportionate to population/size of community?... + yes
for proportionality, + yes for short vs. long term tenant differentiation.
3: + if money is involved, need a duration of stay so time is committed... - maybe commitment would inhibit
participation?, variable tenure?
Register/Renew Annually requirement: Who? how do they get involved in leadership? if a 2 year
commitment, and they only stay for one, should require representation for the following/remaining year of
commitment.
- How do we get people involved to create the neighborhoods?
-its on a neighborhood to neighborhood bases but don't see it actually happening
Session 3: We specifically want feedback on the idea of requiring seven members to form a
Connected Neighborhood, and then we’ll open it up to react to the other ideas, or offer your own.
What do you think about requiring 7 members?
Seven people is not a sufficient number.
Feels arbitrary.
The minimum number should be a percentage of the residents.
How do the students get involved with neighborhood engagement? The are only here for a few years, they
may or may not be interested in participating at all. What about other renters?
Membership should be open to both homeowners and tenants.
How does the leadership element work? The concept of leadership sounds great, but not sure what that
looks like, what are their roles?
It would be nice if the city educated residents about the pros/cons of organizing.
If the city moves forward with this propsal, a neighborhood reference guide would be helpful.
-7 members might be a stretch. Are that many leaders willing to step up?
-Apathy
-Maybe start with three
-Participant who was an HOA president said he would want one person from every HOA to be in the
counsel
-Neighborhoods that don't have an HOA will have to try and find volunteers
-Neighborhoods could get funding for bloc party
-Implementing may be difficult especially with already organized neighborhoods
-HOA's will want to be a part and one contact from a HOA should be incorporated in each connected
neighborhood
-Or let HOA's be one contact and then an informal group be another contact for neighbors
-Another challenge: HOA's can be small, should we combine HOA's?
-Will the HOA's get in the way of this program?
-Communities that don't have an HOA will have some organization
-Should be a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that each Connected Neighborhood counsel has diverse
members so that HOA's do not dominate
-People may feel more comfortable communicating with a representative who then goes to the city
1) Having 7 people at the beginning would be too difficult (you couldn't recruit that many people right away)
2) 2 or 3 people could work as a starting place, depending on size of neighborhood
6
3) Question: When they envisioned the 7 person model, did they envision what responsibilities the
members of the group will fulfill? President? Secretary? Etc?
4) Question: Do the 7 have to be from different parts of the neighborhood? Self-appointed or elected?
• Having minimums upstart people in the neighborhood to have initiative to find their own model for their
neighborhood
• Requiring to vote helps neighborhoods have their voice
• I would frame the requirements with tying them to reasons and bigger principals so that people are more
likely to follow it
o The red tape with no explanation would turn people off
o Framing is important
• Frame requirements around “easy to digest concepts” marry them to the reasons why the exist (so it
GRHVQ¶WFRPHRIIDV³UHGWDSH´ĺVHFRQGHGWKH\UHDOO\GRQ¶WOLNHWKHZRUG³UHTXLUHment”
• We need to be told what we have found what will work so that each neighborhood can use those as a
starting point
• Can there be multiple ways of satisfying the requirement: having meetings more often than the
requirements, or over FaceTime.
o Accommodations for meeting satisfaction so that we are not setting them up for failure
• There is only so much the neighborhood can do with these specific requirements
o For the city to have accountable we need to create our own rules
• Voting requirements in terms of representation and # of voters should be a set number
• 7 is probably okay but I could also see 5 being acceptable and wouldn’t go over 9
• Each neighborhood should have a different minimum number of people on the counsel because it will
depend on neighborhood size
• Consideration has to be given to big neighborhoods (as far as 7 people)
o 7 people to show up to these meeting requirements would be difficult
• Who are the 7 people going to be?
o How do we define those members?
• There has to be a way to use these 7 members to represent our neighborhood and also use their
influence in the city
• Registration requirements are pretty important
o Needs defining
• Emphasis flexibility over time as they change and grow
One lady felt the best way to do that was to look towards the HOAs for people who were already committed
but then arose the issue of some places not having HOAs so we didn't get too far on that.
Our group got super stuck on talking in general, did not talk about the 7 members specifically. See question
below for what we discussed.
1. I understand why they want variety so there are not single people pushing their agenda
2. 7 is still probably too big and too high of expectations for some neighborhoods to get that many people
involved
a. why?
aa. you can sometimes be lucky to get one person to volunteer
3. Minimum requirement should be one member from the neighborhood
a. Someone who wants to be engaged
aa. I think it would need to be two, one is too few
aaa. Yeah one is a person not a community and cannot represent a neighborhood. Should be at least two.
-can't imagine people coming together on their own to do this
-informal is better because we don't want to be forced to do this
-required # would be difficult because what happens if you are in a small neighborhood? Also how would
you get people involved
Session 3: Any reaction to the other potential requirements (registering annually, requiring
votes,
This is more for the city, but there was push back at my table about the wording (on the white sheet
describing everything). The city made it sound like those neighborhoods who did not register with the
7
city for this program would not receive any resources at all. The table thought that it wouldn't be fair to
give only a portion of the community resources and information and not the other.
The overall requirements seem fair.
What happens when the neighborhood fails to meet the requirements?
Would the process for renewal be online?
Neighborhood representatives should be able to choose how leadership is appointed.
One participant asked:
-What is the value of having this structure?
Response: Better Communication
-What is the core and common vision the city is hoping to get our of this program?
Response: To keep the city small scale, "Townships"
1) People need credibility to participate
2) If people need to register annually, then there needs to be some kind of incentive, like training or
something
3)Different areas will differ in their level of participation
The requirements didn't seem to mean much of anything to them.
This isn't exactly a requirement but the idea of have a "small town feel" came up about keeping people
engaged and this was the positive to neighborhood organizations. The trade-off was about how at the
same time the implementation of rules and requirements takes away from that small town feel. This
was a trade-off no one seemed to have thought of previously and deals somewhat with the notion of
how to keep a small town feel with a bigger, growing community.
-They talked about the need for neighbor to neighbor connection to help keep the small town feel and
be engaged to keep the community connection.
1. City staff would like us to renew annually but I don't understand why we have to have minimum
members. That doesn't seem fair because getting people to participate can be hard but we still want
neighborhood engagement
2. Why is voting required and how does it apply to neighborhood engagement?
none specifically
-don't want to create issues when there aren't any currently
-We don't need this because everything is fine, we will come together as a neighborhood if there is a
problem, (more reactive)
-generally, people aren't going to like having the city try to tell them to meet certain requirements when
right now there aren't any
-Voting should not be a requirement, what would we vote on? What if we don't need to vote on anything
Session 3: What other requirements do you think should be considered (either at the city-wide
level, or rules you would want to consider for your own Connected Neighborhood)?
The overall requirements seem fair.
-engage businesses, schools, hospitals, public services? Should program include this, maybe some
benefits and increased diversity because these sectors have special relationships with neighbors, they
bring in jobs, tax payers, and are a big part of communities
1) Training for leaders
2) The first step to Connected Neighborhoods is getting people to want to collaborate and
communicate, they need to be provided with the means to do so
The requirement these people wanted was for the liaison assigned to their neighborhood to have a lot
of power to get things done and not just become another middle man.
See above. Didn't talk about specific requirements much, were stuck on the above.
1. In my neighborhood we meet once a month and there is a lot of structure and consistently. It works
well. I would be worried about how we can get more people to help
2. Representatives should be required to attend a leadership workshop
none specifically
- table didn't see that any needed to be added
-table generally did not like the idea of having minimum requirements
8
Session 4: Looking over the potential resources (F-M), which do you think will be the most
impactful to improving neighborhood engagement?
K would be the most impactful.
Staff Liaison
-A channel to get City council members to be in tuned with neighborhood issues.
-Having a liaison dedicated to a neighborhood is a direct source to a city council members
-Each liaison should be paired with a neighborhood and assigned to a council member
-Each council member is connected to liaison which is connected to Connected Neighborhood district
-Helps with representing underrepresented people in neighborhoods
Our table really liked: G,J (it ought to be two way communication, newsletter in the neighborhood etc.,
PR needs to be expanded), H (maybe change the title to "staff mentor" or something, "liaison" might
sound like it is too connected to government), M, G (we really want neighborhoods to feel empowered),
and I
Notifications
o There needs to be a way of informing residents across boundaries
o Communication needs to be better
• Text messages, emails?
o Used to get postal neighborhood notifications of things happening in my neighborhood, but now I get
notifications for the whole city and I won’t read that anyone
• They need to be relatable to the specific neighborhood
• Notifications need to be more specific
o Technological notifications
Leadership training and staff liaisons
o This will help with the communication problem to the city and to the residents
o Liaisons need to be advocate across all departments for the city infrastructure and planning process
• We need someone who is connected to all of the departments and the residents
• Making information more accessible
• Liaison would have to be a part of the city staff
• In Denver, there is a lady named Lisa G that work through specific development plan and then provide
resources to get that done. We have no one in FoCo to do that.
• Grant and neighborhood renewal fund
o Partnerships to access grant funding and renewal funding
• Grants currently are announced by city but before the grants are awarded there should be
neighborhoods input
• Engagement in Development Review
o Advanced planning in the development process that that the neighborhood can come to a census
about the project
• Giving residents a chance to make an informed decision
• Participation in BFO process
Additional Resources not mentioned:
• Metric for community standards as an overarching city wide view
We really only focused on the liaisons.
-Pro-development participant pointed to item "k" about improved engagement in development review
process... concerned that if there is too much public engagement things become unpredictable and
developers are going to leave and go to other cities. There needs to be sensitivity to these sorts of
issues if this is going to be done so that it can be done well.
-Overall, A LOT of talk about the liaisons... the issue of adding an extra level of communication that if
these people are not properly trained residents will be going over their heads just like they used to and
this will create even more disorganization. The conclusion the group came to (with almost complete
agreement) was that for a liaison to work they would need past experience and be extremely well
trained. If these people do not know what they're doing to a tee it will not be an effective or efficient use
of city time or resources. Liaisons need to have the experience, connections, power, and understanding
of what they need to do and HOW to get it done.
-Worry is that there is no way for liaisons to have the experiential background necessary to truly make
9
them effective.
-Liaisons are not magic bullets, there needs to be a connection between the various neighborhoods.
1. J: What is a renewal grant program?
- I always want to be in transition if I can get money
- Grants are great but how is this money budgeted? This might hurt lower income neighborhoods that
don't have the resources or time to apply but likely have a larger need
- How can we make it more equal and regulated?
- This could be successful depending on how it is administered. Would the city be active in this
process?
- Couldn't be free-for-all because it could get abused
2. L: I'm for this for better development
- Setting priorities to keep divisiveness between neighborhoods
- Like satellites. Who will get it? How should we allocate those resources that would benefit
neighborhoods
3. I: Resource toolbox is great idea and nextdoor could be a great platform for this
- F: What would that toolbox look like?
- Call lists, how to deal with noise issues, dogs barking, parking, mediation
- Would need to be categorized and easy to use
- I submitted a dog barking complaint but took hours to figure out where to go and how to do this
- City has so many resources that few people know about or how to use
overall -1, formal - F, informal - IF.
1: should be an opportunity to repeal decisions made by city council. Allow neighborhoods to tailor
policies tot heir neighborhood. More responsive opportunity beyond the designated 7 folks.
K: - develop process is for developers, but no real value due to lack of results. looks good.
M: + people involved with city have a better understanding so they can have an input. more citizens on
government committees.
K: + if process is changed so citizens have binding result. - need increased other binding component.
1: how to gauge effectiveness of each of these overall? How to judge citizen effect?
F/IF: why should informal get fewer resources? How would other current processes/procedures be
effected? neither model matters until the more whole picture is realized. informal structure would
promote participation (welcoming). informal would be good for intermittent issues, formal would be
good for more regular topics/issues.
-seems fine
-the grants are too broad. Are there limits to this? What sort of things can we get money for? Not sure if
this is a good and fair resources because if one neighborhood gets money to through an ice cream
party then all neighborhoods should even if they don't apply
Session 4: What is missing? What additional resources would you be interested in?
nothing that we can tell.. this looks like a great start.
Providing small internships. Paid maybe-Get from city funding. Someone in neighborhood, preferably
someone young, would have opportunity to do an internship opportunity with the city in relation to this
program and would represent one neighborhood. Training could be provided to the intern.
1) There should be a city-funded website that has info about the food bank and other neighborhood
services (with no advertisements). The website could be used to share community success stories,
report "helping hand" locations, discuss food drop-offs etc.
• Neighborhood festivals
o Every neighborhood has culture and neighborhood so a way to identify it and present it to
neighborhood festivals or newsletter
• Creates pride and arts within the neighborhoods
o People would be more likely to want to come and explore the town if we have festivals that define our
history and culture
• Know what is going on
10
o Coloradoan could highlight neighborhoods
• Events in neighborhoods
• Main resource for what’s going on in the city
Not a missing resource but NET program was brought up discussing police officers and safety and how
great this organization has been.
Interfacing with community leaders and city leaders to foster relationships. Direct points of contact
throughout every department in the city offices for community members. Man power and resources for
neighborhoods as well as guidance and tools to execute plans with mobile access
1. Would love to see what other communities have
- This could be useful, but could it bring negative competition?
2. Neighborhood watch system
- Could be better utilized through nextdoor
- Neighbors who know each other look out for each other
what other topics?
driveways, lighting standards (street), create communication to help growing aging populations, fix
developer mishaps (construction)
- More Fort Collins as a whole community events to foster that neighborhood to neighborhood
engagement
Any notes that don't fit specifically with these questions?
HOA vs. city/neighborhood
What responsibilities are of the HOA, what responsibilities are the city's.
How do we know when to go to our HOA with a concern vs. When to go the city?
there should be disclaimer to the neighborhood organizing that states: "this is not an HOA!!"
Session 5: Ideas
1) Zoning Laws (are now easier to change and this is bad)
-Neighborhoods are expanding and people are getting screwed because the zoning laws keep
changing and devalues property worth
-Changing the zoning laws screws houses worth and neighborhood zones
Example: Women has house and now an apartment complex is being built behind it and how house
values is down $50,000.
2)Disaster Preparedness
-Should have workshops on disaster training
-What do we do if toxic materials come from a railroad or if a train derails?
-The 7 members can propagate this information from the City to residents in the neighborhood
3) Events would be cool
-Community bonfires
-Students could have mentors within each neighborhood (Mentor programs and assistance)
4)U+2
-People get away with it
-5% of deviants cause 90% of the problems
5)Safety
Session 5:
-Residents need to be participating in city planning
-CityPlan 20 year vision
11
-Festivals, gathering, parties
-Sidewalk infrastructure needs help
There were concerns about:
1) Trains/traffic and accidents
2) Creating a crime prevention program
3) Senior citizen care
4) Community potlucks/block parties, food donations, community gardens
5) Bringing back "helping hand"
6) Interest in a "repair cafe," where people can come and have their stuff repaired
• The work in last March and April needs to be updated, and some of the questions need to be carried
through the whole process to measure the change
• Engagement seems to be the major issue (especially because there is nobody here, that shows the
engagement)
• Want for an information medium that is local neighborhood approach
- A yearning for each neighborhood to have its own culture.
- This includes block parties, festivals
- Want to highlight what neighborhoods doing what
- Influence Fort Collins Media to encourage the community feel?
• Want to see how priorities shift over time
After Session 5: Engagement around future neighborhoods...
-Budgeting for outcomes (i.e. building sidewalks) along with enforcement for existing ordinances. Takes
a minimum of a week to hear from someone, staffing problem, under-resourced --> talk about liaison's
ability to help here (again with pushback because of the extra layer of people and communication
required)
-Talk about Access Fort Collins being easiest way to get anything done. But the ways it doesn't work is
in communication between departments when something is fixed. There seems to be an organizational
shortcoming, a better program for processing information and making sure all departments can be
aware of what others are doing/have done.
Projects/topics participants thought neighborhoods could take on: community as an attitude, connecting
resources to people in need including elderly populations to aid in aging in place, coordination of
resources, landscaping natural areas and trails (connecting areas for pedestrians and cyclists), how to
reach renters, intergenerational community building including a neighborhood watch
F: What kind of projects we can take one?
1. Neighborhood solar farms
2. Xeriscaping initiatives
3. Track water/electricity usages against neighbors to encourage conservation
4. Platform for knowing when neighbors need extra support
- Had a baby, just a surgery, needs someone to look after pet, ect
5. Programs that foster community relationships
- Monthly events?
none specifically
Best Practice Research Findings
Finding: The more formal the program, the more resources and incentives are provided to
neighborhoods. Formal programs place strong emphasis on providing opportunities for citizen
involvement, ensure a direct communication link between neighborhoods and city government, and
empower residents to advocate for change in their communities. Typically, these programs provide
substantial financial and staffing resources to neighborhood groups, and in turn, require the groups to
be sophisticated in their organization. Some notable examples include Vancouver, BC, Vancouver, WA,
Portland, OR, Los Angeles, CA, and Minneapolis, MN.
Finding: Informal programs minimize requirements for groups to organize and be recognized by the city.
The intent of the informal programs is to maintain information flow between the City and
neighborhoods, and enable neighborhood organizations to present their positions before decisions are
made by City departments and agencies. The programs, which typically only require groups to register
with cities, create platforms for neighborhoods to take a proactive approach to engaging with respective
City departments/organizations, and focus neighborhood planning initiatives. Notable examples include
Denver, CO, Olathe, KS, Ames, IA, Iowa City, IA, Lakewood, CO, and Lincoln NE.
Finding: Hybrid programs can achieve the best of both models. Other cities have adopted neighborhood
engagement programs that are essentially hybrids of the informal and formal models. These hybrids
utilize a network of neighborhood leaders to build a communication link between municipal
governments and neighborhoods, and to address needs and concerns of residents. Longmont, CO, for
example, has the Neighborhood Group Leaders Program that requires registered neighborhood groups
to meet once per year to elect one or two leaders, who then represent their neighborhood at monthly
meetings held and facilitated by the City. The expectation is that the neighborhood leaders take the
information from the City back to their individual neighborhood groups. Registered neighborhoods are
also eligible for funding through various programs such as Neighborhood Activity and Neighborhood
Improvement Grants.
ATTACHMENT 3
City ProgramOverview
Vancouver,BC
22designatedneighborhoodareasusedinplanningprocesses.Developedrecentstrategy
reporttoimprovesenseofbelongingandinclusionincommunity,anddeepen
engagementwithlocalgovernment.
Seattle,WA
250neighborhoodandcommunityorganizationsdividedupinto13Neighborhood
Districts.EachDistricthastwocitystaffmembersassignedandotherresourcesare
providedonadistrictlevel.
Vancouver,WA
66recognizedneighborhoodassociationswithassociatedresourcessuchasuniquestaff
liaison,reduceslanduse/permittingfees,neighborhoodactionplanning,weekly
communicationsfromtheCity.
Portland,OR
95Recognizedneighborhoodassociationsand7neighborhoodcoalitiondistricts;selfͲ
governancesystemwithbaselinerequirements;extensiveleadershiptrainingandcapacity
buildingprogramsforneighborhoodleaders.
Salem,OR
19independentneighborhoodorganizationsrecognizedbythecity.Oncerecognized,
organizationsgainaccesstocitystaffliaisons,grants,andnotifications.
Corvallis,OR
32neighborhoodorganizationsrecognizedbytheCity.Requiredtohavebylawsand
contactinformationtobecomerecognized,inturnhelpdecisionmakersmakedecisions,
primarilyinplanning.
Eugene,OR
23recognizedneighborhoodorganizationsthatHaveaccesstocitynotifications,
equipment,grants,andstaffaslongasrequirementssuchasadoptingbylawsand
developingorganizationalstructure.
Madison,WI
120+NeighborhoodassociationsthatworkcloselywithPlanningstaffindevelopmentof
neighborhoodplan,beautificationandinfrastructureprojects,andleadershiptraining.
LosAngeles,CA
96NeighborhoodCouncils,eachwithannualbudgetsof$37,000.Formalstructurethat
requiresregularmeetings,bylaws,andaccountingcapabilities.
Boise,ID
29recognizedneighborhoodassociations,eachassigneddesignatedCityPlanners.
Associationsinvolvedindevelopmentissues,neighborhoodlivability,andneighborhoodreͲ
investment.
Olathe,KS
InformalselfͲidentificationsystemforneighborhoodorganizations,whichtheCityusedto
provideinformation,anddevelopneighborhoodactionplanthatcanberecognizedbyCity
council.
Lincoln,NE
51neighborhoodassociations,noneofwhicharerecognizedbyCitygovernment,butare
oftenconsultedbyCitystaffforoutreachandplanningpurposes.
Longmont,CO
50+neighborhoodassociationsrecognizedbytheCityaspartofthen/neighborhood
GroupLeadersAssociation.Leaders/representativesmeetoncepermonthwithCityand
relateinformationbacktoindividualneighborhoodgroups.
Ames,IA
27recognizedneighborhoodsthatprovideadditionalopportunitiestoengagewithcity,
receivenotifications,andaccessmanyneighborhoodprograms.
AnnArbor,MI
90registeredneighborhoodassociationsthatarenotifiedaboutdevelopmentproposals
andparticipatecloselyinplanningprocess.
IowaCity,IA
33neighborhoodassociations,withnoofficialCityrecognitionprogram.Neighborhood
groupscanreceiveplanningassicstanceandgrantopportunitiesfromCitystaff.
Lakewood,CO
120+neighborhoodassociationsthatgainaccesstonotifications,neighborhoodprograms,
andgrantsupto$60,000.
Denver,CO
186RegisteredNeighborhoodOrganizationsthatreceivenotificationsfromCityandcan
collectiveleyexpressstanceoncitypoliciesanddevelopmentprojects.
Minneapolis,MN
70neighborhoodassociations,requiredtooperateasindependentorganizations,that
havededicatedcitystaffmemberandreceivesubstantialannualbudgetsfromCity.
1
3-2-16
Neighborhood Connections
Josh Weinberg & Clay Frickey
ATTACHMENT 4
Some of the ways we focus on
Neighborhood Livability
2
Traffic Calming Program Mediation Program Neighborhood Enforcement Team
Park Ranger Program Parking Permit Program Rental Housing Inspection
Neighborhood Grants And More! Public Nuisance Ordinance
Neighborhood Night Out Graffiti Abatement Occupancy Ordinance & Enforcement
Code Enforcement Police Patrol Services Community Liaison & Programs
Urban Forest Management Humane Society Contract Medians & Streetscapes Maintenance
Introduction
• Project Purpose
• Project Managers
• Best Practice Research
• Public Engagement
Overview
• Next Steps
3
Team
• Project Leaders
• Josh Weinberg
• Clay Frickey
• Consultants/Partners
• CSU Center for Public Deliberation
• Trebuchet Group
• City Staff
4
Purpose
5
Photo Source: fanpop.com
Photo Source: thamesvalleypartnership.org.uk
Photo Source: natureworldnews.com
Purpose
6
• Community desired outcomes
• Proactive approach
• Structure
• Enhanced connections
• Small town feel
• Leadership capacity
Timeline
7
Neighborhood Engagement Research
8
Public Engagement Summary
9
• Questionnaire
• Leadership Events
• Community Advisory Group
• Community Issues Forum
• Focus Groups
• Community partnerships
What Neighborhood
Connections Should Achieve
• Proactive system to
manage issues
• Improved
communication
• Capacity building
• Give neighborhoods
more prominent voice
• Flexible system
10
What Neighborhood
Connections Should Avoid
• High barriers for
participation
• Top down approach
• HOA conflict
• Lack of knowledge
about Neighborhood
Connections
11
Pilot Program - Hybrid
• Hold initial neighborhood meetings
• Identification of neighborhood representatives/boundaries
• Monthly meetings with representatives and City
• Roll out leadership training program
• Begin asset mapping and neighborhood project prioritization
• Optional monthly or quarterly neighborhood meetings
12
Pilot Program - Components
13
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Consolidated messaging and notifications
to neighborhoods on: development review,
neighborhood meetings, CAP initiatives,
Council listening sessions, etc.
- Explore dedicated City liaison to
neighborhoods
- Number of touch points with
neighborhoods
- Amount of online traffic around resources
- Number of requests for notifications.
Strategy: Improve neighborhood information on City programs,
initiatives, policies, and pilot projects
Pilot Program - Components
14
Strategy: Build leadership capacity in community
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Deliver in-person leadership training
courses with assistance from local
resources
- Provide online leadership resources
- Participation in programs
- Shift in resident participation in their
neighborhoods and in City processes
- Quality of community conversations among
residents that are already engaged
Pilot Program - Components
15
Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to effectively organize and connect
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Conduct monthly meetings of
representatives of all participating
neighborhoods
o Topics that are of broad interest
o Includes training and informal
networking/connecting
- Participating neighborhoods be
inclusive of all property owners and
tenants
- Neighborhood representation /
participation at meetings and events
- Feedback on effectiveness / flexibility
of program
Pilot Program - Components
16
Strategy: Enable neighborhoods to positively and effectively influence
planning
Associated Activities Potential Measures
- Encourage proactive neighborhood
planning through sub-area plan
implementation, asset mapping, and
budget prioritization.
- Neighborhood actions on planning
objectives
- Feedback from citizens on planning
and implementation effectiveness
Questions
1. What feedback does Council have for staff moving forward with a
pilot program?
2. What additional components, strategies, outcomes, and measures
would Council like to see incorporated?
17
18
19
Community Issues Forum
20
Top 5 Program Elements
Leadership Training +22
Council of Neighborhoods +9
Neighborhood Planning +9
Participatory Budgeting +8
Expanded Neighborhood Grants +8
Bottom 5 Program Elements
Neighborhood Branding -14
Neighborhood Associations -12
Neighborhood Awards -10
Annual Budgets -7
Staff Liaison +5
Questionnaire Results
21
How would you say your neighborhood
interacts with the City currently?
How would you like to see your
neighborhood interact with the City?
Questionnaire Results
22
Questionnaire Results
23
24
25
rating
Rank
Number of
jurisdictions for
comparison
Comparison to
Front Range
benchmark
Your neighborhood during the day 93 5 17 Much higher
Your neighborhood at night 81 5 11 Much higher
Downtown Fort Collins during the
day 89 10 20 Similar
Downtown Fort Collins at night 68 12 14 Much lower
Parks 79
Not
available Not available Not available
(Access Fort Collins, Digital
Publications, Recreator) 19% 16% 22% 23% 20% 20%
City booth at local events 45% 42% 39% 38% 44% 42%
" % 4DF ;
0 ;4F
%" 4F
& ">% 7 %6$" 4)F
2$ % $ 4F 3
7 "
" 34F G
. 4F
<
$ G
340
%5
"4DF
&
" %4DF
0 ;F
%"4F
& ">% 7 %6$" 4)F
2$ % $F
7 "
" 34F
. 4F
;
%7 $$ %
"% % ""
"
7 $ " % " $
7
4
6"
$/
%$ $
" *$/ /% ","
" *"
" ,4
*+,*
$
"
" " %
"
$
% " " 4
"
"
$ 7"%
$$
77
%
"
%
$
$
$ $
$$ " "
" " %
"" %
" %
"
"
!"
"
"7 $$
7 " $
$ $
"
%$"
>
"
%
"
I
%$ " "$
" ".$ <
"
$(I
$
"
9%
"
"
"""%
"
"
$ " 7 $ $
%
"
%"
"
$"
$ " "
"
%
"
$ %/
7%
"
" %$"
$
7%
" 7 /N
$
%
M $
"
""$! " " '" "
< $
1"
$ %
" "
"*
% $$
7 $ $
$
$ ,
%
7 / "7 $ "
* 5,$
" $ "
"$ *"" $
7 7
'B,4
*+,*
%
+
"
"
&$
" "
6
$ %
" "! " 2$
4
!" %
! " $
"! "
"
!
"7 %"
2 %
"
$
$
"
"%
: "
"
"
"" $7 % " " " " %
"4
)
"5L
"8
% 4
4 L51 "
5'
"4
"" &
"
$
"
"
M .
"""%
$
"! " "" = "
" % " "
7
$% $% " "
"
"$$ " %
%$
$"
"
" $ " %
"
$ 7 $
% $"
&
I
" " "$ I
< 77 %
%
"
$
"M
*+,*
)
"""% )4)F );
. 34GF DD
<
$ ;3
*+,*
!7 $" )
$
%
> " I
77 %$ < $ "4<
$ 7
$$4
>
" "%"
%
""%
"
"
1
$'
'
" ""%"7 %"4
'
"
: "
'
"
"
'
"
$
""4
-
/ %"" "% " ' $
0$$" - 4
-
"8" 4
)467
L "7 "
9%/
$
"
"5
'
"
$ " 4F
$ % ;F
7
D4F
6"7 % 4F
< "
"D4DF
"""%)4)F
. 34GF
7%
4
*+,*
"
"7
"
+-
+
"$%
"% $%
77 % $
0 " '
%
%
"
$ 7"A,
"
"$ ">
4&
7
" '
*% %$$
$
,5
)4F
4F
)D4DF
;4F
4;F
4F
2 $
"
% $2 $ '
"> " .
3
;
G
$
7
4GF ))
."%
" D4F
2$
$
" 4F )
<
$ G
4&
7 C"$
%
"'
""%% *"
" /'
'
"% $
" /
" %
" " /%4,5
4F
%
$
7
4GF
."%
" D4F
2$
$
" 4F
;
( ( )
'
0 &%
D4F
'$
4)F
4F
G
6
$
" "$
3)4F
#"
))43F
&
)4F
G
<<*
$ %, '
;4DF
#
)4F
$
4;F
G
( *B $ , !'
;;4F
$
43F
4)F
G
: " $"
4GF
&#
)D4F
$
4DF
G
1 '
$$ "' (" %!
34F
"
;4F
$!
4F
G
" 1 .%
&&
3G4F
'
4F
#
343F
G
'$ 0 '
)4F
#
D43F
%
;4GF
G
7
%
$ %$
34F
'
4F
)4;F
G
G4&
7 $
7
$$
"
>
%
77
'
5
D
% %% "$
7%
" %
"
7"
'" 4" 40 %
9%
4F 4F 4F F
"7 9
"7
'B
"
%
7% "%
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
%%
" % $ "% "
7"
4F 4F 4F F
'B%
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
$%
""% 4F 4F 4F F
B
%
" "
%
" %
"
9%" $ 4F 4F 4F F
" "%
$
""7 %"/ "%$ " "%"$
"
4
4F 4F 4F F
> $ """% 4F 4F 4F F
$ " "
"
7$ " 7" "!2 "(
4F 4F 4F F
2 " " " "
% % 4F 4F 4F F
68 $
%%
$
"
"-
$ "
4F 4F 4F F
$ %
4F
4F
!"
4DF
#
)4;F
$
;4)F
;G
% %
4F
$
4;F
!
34F
$&
)4DF
%'
)4F
G
'
$"" " * $
" , "
34F
"$
G4F
&
);4F
&
4F
$'
34)F
;G
1
4F
%
4F
$
34F
);4F
$
4;F
;;
< "1 %
;4GF
'&
4F
$
)G4F
&
4)F
!
D4F
G
" %
"
)4;F
!
;4)F
$
G4F
!'
G4DF
'
G4)F
G
B $ %
4F
D4GF
'&
;4F
%#
)4DF
D4GF
G
'
4F
!&
D4)F
#
;4F
$#
D4F
$$
4F
;G
;4&
%
$
%%
7
$$
" '
"" %5
3
" /
"""%/ %"/%4, " $
"%
$ "/ %
" "
" " %$ $ $$ %
C$
7"
""
46
$
4F 4F 4F F
$$" $ %
" %
""%
" " 4F 4F 4F F
"7 %"
7$ $ 4F 4F 4F F
(
" " " 4F 4F 4F F
%
"'" 4F 4F 4F F
2
"
" $
7%
$ " " " " 7 $$
%
"%'
" > "
$ 4K$ $ "
$"
$
4
4F 4F 4F F
%
"$%" 4F 4F 4F F
%
$ 4F 4F 4F F
$/ " 4F 4F 4F F
'
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
+%
"
"0 $$ $ 4F 4F 4F F
%
" %
"(
" 4F 4F 4F F
.%%
"%
6
% "7 %" 4F 4F 4F F
7
$
" 4F 4F 4F F
" 4F 4F 4F F
6"%$
" " 1 '
$$ "%
$ % 4F 4F 4F F
" 4F 4F 4F F
$/
4F 4F 4F F
6" "*
4 $ "
'"
! ", 4F 4F 4F F
< 77 %$ @ """% 4F 4F 4F F
" !
" %
" "
". $" < 4 4F 4F 4F F
$ ( "
"
" 1 "
42"
%""
$
$ % "
" %
7
$ "
%
7
"4"
" %" >
$$
/ $
"%
%
4F 4F 4F F
42 %
%$
%
"!
7 $
"" % "$
$ 4
4F 4F 4F F
'
"7 %" " " $ 4F 4F 4F F
$$
- "
77 %7
%
$
444<
" "
%7
"
4F 4F 4F F
'
$$ " ""
4F 4F 4F F
$" "%
" %
"/
$"" " >(
" " " " $ 4F 4F 4F F
$
" 4F 4F 4F F
'
"7 %" 4F 4F 4F F
'
"7 %" 4F 4F 4F F
&
"
%
" " " @ % 4F 4F 4F F
$ 4F 4F 4F F
'B "
" 4F 4F 4F F
2 " " " % %
7 "
" 7%
7
7
(
" " " $
" 4
4F 4F 4F F
$ %
$ 4F 4F 4F F
< '
"
7 " " 7
%
"
" 4F 4F 4F F
4F 4F 4F F
< 77 % 4F 4F 4F F
4F 4F 4F F
>
$"
$ %
""%""
4F 4F 4F F
0 "
7%
"
"
""$! " " '" >
< $
4F 4F 4F F
"
$
"
"
""
4F 4F 4F F
77 %
$ "
"
< $ "
4F 4F 4F F
. % "
7%
" %
"$"" % $$ "
72
"
' % " !
$" 7$
4F 4F 4F F
'
%>"7 $$
"
4F 4F 4F F
6
$ $ 7 %
"
"7
"
"
2 $%
$4
4F 4F 4F F
$
"
'B%
" %
" 4F 4F 4F F
"" %
% 4F 4F 4F F
6"7 % * $/$" %
" /
, D 4DF )) 34F ; ;4F ;; F
< "
"* $
/%%
$ % " / 77 %, D 4F G; ))4;F ; 4DF G F
+
"%*
"""%/"
/$
/
$%
$,
; 4F ) )4GF 33 )4F ;D F
&.
$ "
$
% "$ % %$
"
/7
"
" " /
" /%$
$ "4
4F 4F 4F F
$ A %
$$ $ "
"
7 " $
$ $$H
""
>" * " "@
,
4F 4F 4F F
-
/
"
4F 4F 4F F
$" % " 4F 4F 4F F
%
" " %
"/ " "%/"
%
7
"
4
4F 4F 4F F
< 77 %%$ " 4F 4F 4F F
%
""%
"
$ 4F 4F 4F F
7%%
$/ $" " I 4F 4F 4F F
(
" "
"
7%
"
"
$ 7 $
$$ " 4F 4F 4F F
. 7$
" /$$
"""% 4F 4F 4F F
"7 % " $
%$ " "
7
$4 4F 4F 4F F
< 77 % "$ "
"$
" 7
$%
$$%
$$ "
7
$%
4F 4F 4F F
> "%" 7
"* "
77 % "%
,
4F 4F 4F F
<
% " $(
" " 40" %
% $4
" "4
4F 4F 4F F
2
" " $ %
7" "
4F 4F 4F F
=%"
4F 4F 4F F
' % 4F 4F 4F F
:
4F 4F 4F F
% "
"*= ./6 ,7
" "
" $"
4F 4F 4F F
"""% 4F 4F 4F F
D40 %
7
7$"
" "" %
" %
""
"
" '
5
)
- " '
'
- % " " " $
$4
&.
2
!" %
'
!" %
> '
2
7&.
2
7 " '
!
"
"&
"
%
% $%
<
< /
2
$ " /
" %
"
" 77 "%
40
$ "
%
"5
$
%
$$
$
"
"
"%
$
"
$$
$"
$$ %
"
/ % 7 " $
$$ $$4 $ "
% " "
% " & /"
"
% " &
" %
$$
"
"
"
4<
"
+
% " "
"4B $$7
$ 7 " $
"
"%$ ""
" /" "
&.4
6$ " $$/ 7$$ "
" %
" ("
444
$
"8 $$
"
%$
7 % " & 4
D
0 $$
0 $$
"
0 $$
"
0
0
* $ @$$
,
% $$
%
"
"(
$
@7
$
%
$
"
C $
$$
"
3
<& A
".$ <
"/@0- " <7
<""
"&
<
"
< <
< 0
$" *&
"
> $ ,
%" '
$$
% $
%> $
"%
"
? $&$$
% $
% !
) % $
& $$
$$
"1
"1
"7
%'
&
"
%'
" >!2 "(
%'
"
)
/2$
" <
$
$$" 2
$$" 2 0
)
40 %
" 2 "
$
&.
'
%
%
% "
$
$& $$
2
$ $$
2
$
2 "(
2 "(
2%'$$$" 8'
2
$
2
2
*0
7< $ "" - ,
2 $$
) 2
"
2
"= $$
2
" "
2
" "= &
2$
& $$
.
.
= $$
.$
%
.$ <
"
.$ <
"/'
$$ >2$
.$ <
"
.$ <
"0
.$ <
"0>!
"
.$ 7 %
$$ "
.$
"
.$
"
.$
"/$ ( "
"
. $
0
4.44<
"
)
!" "
"
#"
$$
% " &
% "
% "
'
$& $$
'
'
&
'
% $ $(
) '
$$ " $
'
$$ " $
'
"
*
"%
$+,
'
"
-
'
.$
"
.$
"
/0 "
%
$ ( " %
$$
) " $ "%
1$%
"
1
$' '
"
1
$' 2
3 1
$! "%
4 0 "
$ "5*67
"
"8 "/ " 9
%
5,