Discussion with APWA Public Works Institute

Councilmembers and Mayor are elected Council sets the policy – staff administers the policy Council and Staff – – What’s the same? - both work for the City – What’s different? – most everything else (interests, objectives, pressures, knowledge…) Citizen expectations – key to council - staff relationship Councilmembers have close ties to the community Mutual respect – key to the council - staff relationship Setting the Stage - background

Building the Relationship (Why It’s Important) Get to know your councilmembers Good relationship takes many “deposits” in the relationship account and not too many “withdrawals” Be available – when councilmembers need you Councilmembers have more on their plate than public works When Council doesn’t follow your recommendation, it’s not personal Invite councilmembers to department functions

Communication - in general Key staff role –assist councilmembers with citizen concerns and issues How you say “no” makes all the difference Don’t let councilmembers get blindsided – keep them informed A quick response is good, but a quick, accurate response is better Communicate with councilmembers – as they prefer

Communication – technical issues Councilmembers probably aren’t fascinated by the engineering details! Avoid engineer jargon Best technical solution may not be the best solution for councilmembers Provide enough technical and policy information details to permit informed decisions

“Hot Buttons” (How not to succeed) Getting surprised “No” is not a good relationship builder Slow responses to councilmembers’ concerns shows lack of respect Partial treatment of councilmembers is a “lose-lose” situation “Falling on your sword” every time costs you influence with councilmembers Showing a lack of flexibility and innovation in addressing issues is not helpful

Presentations to Councilmembers Know your audience Keep the presentation as brief as the topic permits Use clear, simple, readable charts – but don’t read them Rehearse your presentation beforehand Keep “Murphy” out of the room

Case Study Removal of Traffic Signal at 97 th & Antioch Issue: Staff recommendation in 2013 to remove this signal since it did not meet MUTCD warrants Background: 33-year old signal needed to be replaced, but didn’t meet the criteria for having a signal. Residents expressed concerns for vehicle and pedestrian safety. Their concerns were addressed at a public meeting, two Public Works Committee meetings and a council meeting. One ward councilmember had just been elected to the council. Outcome: Ultimately, the council voted, 10-2, to remove the signal. Removal was delayed until 2015 to address timing, easement acquisition and neighborhood concerns Impact on councilmember – staff relationship

Case Study Chip Sealing of Residential Streets Issue: Resumption of chip sealing residential streets. Had been halted in Background: Chip sealing of residential streets is an effective maintenance treatment but is not popular with residents. Was replaced in 2005 with microsurfacing on an 8-4 council vote. Microsurfacing was not a success, for many reasons. In 2013, staff recommended to Council that chip sealing resume. Council approved the change. Outcome: Chip seal was restarted in 2014 and continued this year. Significant “feedback” from residents to staff and councilmembers.

Case Study Reconstruction of 127 th, Metcalf to Nall Issue: Organized resident opposition to a 4-lane thoroughfare with median Background: Between December 2005 and February 2008, there were multiple public meetings, Public Works Committee meetings and council meetings at which residents sought to stop or “downsize” the project. Ward councilmembers and staff were actively engaged in listening, explaining and, ultimately, for councilmembers, voting to proceed with the project. Outcome: Today, the improvements are generally to the liking of the residents. (but could we have gotten there with less turmoil?) Impact on councilmember – staff relationship…

Case Study Reconstruction of 127 th, Metcalf to Nall