Information Services Advisory Board

Information Services Advisor Board

MINUTES

August 4, 2008

Council Executive Conference Room #10035

316 N. Academy Street, Cary, North Carolina

www.townofcary.org

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Mary Margaret Barnes (6:33 p.m.), Bruce Brown, Lee Douglas, Thomas Eck, Mark Evangelista, John Fitzpatrick, Helen Hutchings, John Nolander, Vijay Raghavendran, Council Liaison Julie Robison (6:05 p.m.), Staff Liaisons Susan Moran and Teri Peralta

Absent: Terra Shelton-Brown

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Brown moved to approve the minutes from the July 7, 2008 meeting. Mr. Fitzpatrick provided a second and the motion passed unanimously.

Old/New Business: Understanding Development

Mr. Evangelista began by asking board members if they had an opportunity to review the Town’s videos. Everyone indicated that the videos were very well done and quite professional. Ms. Moran explained that, while it was difficult to encapsulate all the information into ten minutes, it was hoped that the videos adequately demonstrated the complexities that citizens face when they desire to engage in these processes. She added that it is difficult to make broad statements because each case often depends on individual circumstances. When asked how they could be seen other than on the Town’s Web site, Ms. Moran explained that they are played regularly on Cary TV channel 11 could also be viewed in the Planning department or a copy could be requested.

Julie Robison arrived at 6:05 p.m.

Mr. Evangelista asked the board to consider what improvements might be possible and how that might be accomplished. Ms. Moran added that, while a community is often perceived as being on one side or the other of an event, there are rarely complaints from those people indicating that they do not know how to get through the process. She also noted that the Town generally hears from people when they are impacted by other property owners who are acting within their state-granted rights.

Ms. Moran cautioned the board to keep in mind their target audience when considering adjustments to the development process. She explained that approximately ten percent of the town is undeveloped land and, as Cary ages, redevelopment will have to be reexamined, which will always impact someone. She went on to note that the Planning Department is working on an interactive teaching tool similar to a flowchart that the board will be asked to take a look at down the road.

Mr. Brown observed that there are generally two different groups in any given event – one wanting to initiate a change, such as a developer or engineer with many available resources, and one representing those impacted who often do not have or are not aware of those resources. Ms. Hutchings added that those impacted often have to do a lot more work to figure out their options. She observed that people are often busy living their own lives and, by the time they realize something is happening in their own neighborhood, the time left for such research reduced.

Ms. Moran indicated that staff struggled with these same issues when developing the videos, noting that they endeavored to help people recognize where they can impact the process, such as at public hearings, and letting them know who they can contact and how to do so—how they can be meaningfully involved and impact the outcome.

Board members commented on possible solutions and Ms. Moran reminded them that they first need to identify all the problems they wish to address and then work toward a solution. Mr. Brown indicated that zoning codes are difficult to find and understand, and having a listing on the Web site defining the codes, perhaps linking to visual aids, could be helpful. He added that he thought the Town’s process of alerting impacted citizens seems to work well, as he received notification although he was not an adjoining property.

Ms. Hutchings wondered if there was a way to engage citizens earlier on in the process, and Mr. Douglas suggested that the notification letter might included a reference to a Web page with links to the video, plot plans, contact information and an explanation of the protest process. Mr. Brown agreed, and a discussion ensued about the issue he was involved in so as to ascertain the effectiveness of the process and how citizens felt about the outcome.

Mr. Evangelista asked what audience the videos were targeting, and Ms. Moran replied that it spoke to developers and those being impacted but did not break it down any further than that. She observed that it was geared more for the group being impacted.

Ms. Barnes arrived at 6:33 p.m.

Mr. Evangelista asked if the board felt they had a good idea of what problems they might want to investigate, and Ms. Moran proposed that they might want to gather more information. She suggested that they work with the planning department to follow a project, beginning with the notification process by receiving a letter as though they were impacted residents, and allow them to do their own research.

Mr. Eck submitted that reviewing a closed case would provide more insight and offer a chance to consider if a different approach may have worked. Mr. Brown countered that with a closed case you cannot attend hearings and could lose the intensity of the issue. He suggested that the board review the rezoning case in his neighborhood, adding that all the historical information is available and he could also serve as a resource. Ms. Moran explained that such an endeavor would require them to do a lot of digging, reviewing minutes from the various meetings and possibly talking to the staff member who worked on it.

Mr. Eck moved that the board look at an historical rezoning project for analysis, the topic of which to be determined based on availability of information and resources. Mr. Douglas provided a second and the motion passed with a majority vote.

After further contemplation, the board also expressed desire to pursue the idea of following a new case from beginning to end. Ms. Moran agreed to work with the planning department to see if this was possible and cautioned that there would have to be ground rules concerning observation and nonparticipation so as not to interfere with the actual progress of the case.

Ms. Hutchings moved that planning staff be directed to develop a model by which board members can participate, as observers only, in a live case. Mr. Nolander offered a second and the motion carried unanimously.

Ms. Robison suggested that if the board had specific questions in mind they might want to invite a few individuals who have been through the process to come and answer questions. Noting comments made earlier about accessibility of rezoning information on the Web site, she noted that the information is there but is not always easy to find. Ms. Moran indicated that staff would take a look at this during the Web site review.

Statement of Findings

The board found several issues with regard to planning and development and determined to pursue two methods by which to explore these issues with assistance from staff in starting those investigations.

Ms. Robison asked that the board keep council informed of their progress.

Watch List: Web Site Overhaul

Ms. Moran explained that as part of the overhaul they are looking at standardization of video player technology, adding that rollout of the new site is still scheduled for the end of September.

Watch List: Dynamic Message Signs

There were no comments on this item. The board was asked to consider taking this item off the watch list since the Mayor’s concerns have been addressed.

Watch List: Open Meetings Legislative Action

There were no comments on this item.

Watch List: Citizen Issue Review Commission

Ms. Moran stated that council directed clerk staff to invite applications from graduates of the school of government to participate on the first Citizen Issue Review Commission. She explained that, of the 17 graduates who expressed interested, the clerk’s office randomly selected seven names to be presented to council for ratification and chair selection.