This is an annual process that we use to set the work plans for our boards and commissions. It always starts with the boards and commissions themselves developing their kind of their request for the kinds of things they would like to work on... there's this period of time... staff are taking a look at the kinds of things they're asking for... we're looking at our bandwidth for our staff, we're looking at the resources available and then we come back and present to you what we think we can do.

Hennepin County is kind of finalizing their value engineering that they did over the summer on their size of the building... they are going to be doing an open house in mid-December... and then shortly after that we're going to bring that back to the arts and culture commission and then hopefully try to do just after the first of the year a joint session with the council and the arts and culture commission.

I'm just concerned about things trickling up to council that are not code compliant and super sensitive wanting that to stop... I just want everything rooted in what can actually be done... make sure it's vetted and it's approved by the whether it's code or Planning Commission or whatever it's code compliant.

The only thing they should be looking at is the portion of the city code that relates to their board or commission and then making any revisions or edits that they think make align it better with the comprehensive plan... before it comes to us I want to know that it's okay... we can vet them with our City attorney.

We have some comments on there that the that this initiative really is staff-led and part of the engineering department work plan in 2025 so we're just asking for a change that the commission will review and comment on phases of that review and prioritization for the climate action plan.

I'm really concerned that we're going to just sort of wallow in it and not take a fresh look at it... there's a couple elements that are really nonsensical and in my opinion... I just want to make sure that we're not just hearing from the people who created and love and nurture and all of this but I you know what would it look like from somebody you know get a fresh perspective on do we really want to keep going down this path.

The question I think that Julie's posing is the way I see it is does staff and the Planning Commission have time to do both the review in history and then looking forward in one year and it sounds like maybe you feel that that's too ambitious to do both of those in one year.

Every year we have new Commissioners come on and in some years we have a whole bunch so if we do a whole review in one year and then the new stuff in the second year how much institutional knowledge are we going to lose in a year's time... I'm a little concerned about spending all this time reviewing and then poof they're gone and we have new people and they don't know what the history is.

When I think about the composition of the original design experience guideline team it was planning Commissioners it was residents nearby like Colen Wolf it was business people it was people from the broader Community might have been a dozen people involved and so to me it kind of begs the question if you want to look at this and then have a fresh look you just want to limit it to the planning commissioner do we want to we want to recruit a new group that gets some historical knowledge and then they take a fresh look at it but it's it's a broader group than just the Planning Commission it's more like a small area study team.

If if we expand the scope and the scale of that um we haven't really looked at that from a budget bandwidth standpoint because if it is that would be very much like the the effort we put behind a small area plan and we've got one that we're doing and one that we still have to finish up so adding another one not sure I'm just not sure we haven't had any discussion on that yet.

What we're recommending is... the current Council remembers this but then 2019 we actually did hire a consultant who did a presentation to the Transportation Commission... we still have that training video so we did provide it to the Planning Commission members um in hopes that they would spend some time to review it as well... we are going to ask the engineering department um to present at a future Planning Commission um work session on traffic studies.

So is this specifically about what the code says the commission does because um they're doing aren't they doing a review of the zoning ordinance now so that's separate from the review of the zoning ordinance correct the city code this one is all in the administration chapter three.

We just we did have like an assessment of like all the different events that we're doing and so we asked about removing the open house for the bike and master plan to allow the cmap project team to complete their work first because that could inform in the future something that they might want to do around education but in a lieu of again planning their event consider participating in other community events.

The commission um really taking a step back and reflecting on their work um the impact of that work um and what would be meaningful to them as volunteer uh Commissioners in the city... there are a number of topics that the commission would be able to discuss under this item throughout the year um that would ultimately lead to some sort of report of findings best practices and uh recommendations on how to move forward um so some of those things being barriers to participation meeting frequency um engaging more um in diverse voices and City decision- making um engagement structures.

The esap is what we call it um is a heavily um internally facing document so it really calls on staff to look internally at our internal processes programs and services um and ultimately um prioritize our work um to move the needle um on at least a couple items in the immediate that are um really important can lay the foundation for future progress uh so the commission would provide an external um perspective to that process um they would receive uh more frequent updates than um General members of the public um they would participate in some briefing sessions to help um analyze and understand uh the results um and all the feedback that's been received um and would ultimately help um craft and provide feedback on the L language of that esap document.

We have a number of members that will be rolling off of the Commission in 2025 we have a current vacancy um and then we have some um attendance um issues um and so um this uh task force model would allow the commission to potentially um retain some of the members that will be rolling off the commission to keep that institutional knowledge... increased flexibility U with meeting schedules um so just being able to respond um and meet more frequently as it relates to uh the esap um even if that's in smaller working groups um and those discussions that are happening related to engagement um increase communication so really want to make sure that they are really focused on bringing in additional voices um so I think one of the things about the current commission structure is that community members come they sort of sit in the back and they don't really get to fully participate um so this model would allow community members to come and fully participate.

What is the benefit of having the structure we have now where people have certain amount of terms... tell me what we might lose if we change the structure of um you know sort of the rules and the Robert's Rules the community comment only in community comment... how do we keep the conversation because sometimes you'll get someone who has a be in their Bonnet and they're going to do all the talking and then nobody else in the room can talk so how can those are some of the things that our current structure I think um help control so how what would we lose if we take away that more formal structure.

I just want to um make sure that there is a structure so if something were to happen like in was it 2015 when we had the incident with the police there is a body that's ready to respond to provide you know a known Community voice that can help us process this um and that's that's one thing I want to make sure that that's always available.

I think Carolyn brings up a good point though that maybe listing out a couple parameters like for me the staff capacity need needs to meet equivalent to what we currently give to the HRC that's like a a so maybe we can set up a couple parameters that would um allow really clear expectations related to the task force.

In 2025 um commissions would develop two work or two-year work plans so a little bit longer projection longer term... moving to two-year work plans we would divide the commissions we've got eight commissions that actually build work plans into um into two groups so annually four commissions would develop a two-year work plan and annually four commissions would do a review and any updates or amendments if needed... we would adjust what the purpose of that joint work session is with Council so it would really focus on work plan development versus commissions coming to you and just reporting on what they've completed... when things are completed on work plans as a liaison it's their job to send that information up to you so you are getting those updates about what they're working on what they're seeking and what they really want to have the conversation around is what do you want us to work on.

Long-term Vision um helps us aligning them when we're thinking about our budget budget work plan budget values and Department work plans um we'd have improved resource allocation so priorities for a longer Horizon so staff can better plan our future... planning fatigue uh annual planning can become repetitive... better project completion um projects take longer than a year... evaluation um more time you know annually... the uh human right relations they would update the bias response plan every year we can never evaluate it right because we didn't allow it to do its work and then go back to it.

When we interview Commissioners they have IDE you know ideas they want to do something then they come in they're like what do you mean it's already all set I have to take on somebody else's project and then in this case maybe even wait two years before they can start an initiative how do we juggle that so we want to leave space for that update right making some small amendments and adjustments because they might be even bring a perspective that maybe could update um so that's what we're hoping with happened there.

There's always that opportunity within like a year and a half it would be the most it would be it would be a year and a half of when they start.