(Agenda)
Draft Meeting Minutes
Date: April 2, 2025
Location: [Assumed City Hall or online]
Chair: Deputy Mayor Steinmetz
Recorder: Victoria Andrews
1. Welcome & Introductions
- Deputy Mayor Steinmetz called the meeting to order and led roundtable introductions.
- Some committee member terms have expired; while they cannot vote, they are encouraged to participate.
- The application link for CAC membership has been circulated; members encouraged to reapply or share with interested community members.
2. Appointive Committee Structure Discussion
Presentation by City Manager Katherine Caffrey
- There are currently nine appointive committees in Des Moines (7 existing, 2 newly created: Planning Commission and Airport Committee).
- Some committees are underperforming or lack adequate staff support due to recent budget reductions.
- Proposal to restructure into a central CAC with topic-focused subcommittees.
- Example: Combine Arts, Human Services, and Senior Services into a Community Enrichment Board.
Committee Member Feedback:
- General support for umbrella CAC model with subcommittees.
- Desire for subcommittees to maintain autonomy.
- Proposed use of liaisons to improve communication without hierarchy.
- Emphasis on retaining subject-matter expertise in specialized committees.
- Interest in restarting lapsed committees, such as Human Services.
- Agreement that bylaws and purpose statements are outdated and need overhaul.
3. Strategic Plan Discussion
Presentation by City Manager Katherine Caffrey
- Strategic planning process launched; external consultant to be hired via RFQ to facilitate (not dictate) the process.
- Plan will reflect community vision, identify priorities, and act as a living document for guiding Council decisions and budgets.
Initial Priorities Discussed:
- Waterfront identity: Embrace “Waterland” brand and maritime culture.
- Communication: Strong desire for a dedicated communications staffer and streamlined public information access.
- Economic development: Focus on downtown revitalization, support for small business, and promoting events.
- Transportation: Improve east-west access and explore ferry connections.
- Diversity, equity & inclusion: Improve representation of youth, minorities, and veterans on committees.
- Family focus: Make Des Moines the best place in the region to raise children.
- Signature events: Desire to revive or replace Waterland Festival to build identity and community cohesion.
- 509 & light rail: Ensure the city capitalizes on major regional investments and Last Mile connections.
4. Path Forward
- Meeting schedule: Regular meetings will now be held on the fourth Wednesday of each month.
- Neighborhood representation: Retained to ensure geographic equity, with two members per district when possible.
- Recruitment: Encouraged reapplication from expired members; also a push to bring in new members and broaden participation.
- Committee roster management: Improve tracking of member terms and transitions to avoid vacancies.
- Recognition: Suggestion to formally offboard and celebrate outgoing members.
5. Adjournment
Motion to adjourn was approved unanimously.
Next meeting: Fourth Wednesday in May.
Transcript
[4:50] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Let’s call the meeting to order. I’m Harry Steinmetz, the Deputy Mayor. Let’s just go around the room and introduce ourselves. We’ll start with Colleen.
[5:03] Colleen G:
Hi everyone, I’m Colleen G, and I represent the Zenith Community.
[5:23] Terry:
Chase Central basically.
[5:30] Katherine Caffrey:
I’m the City Manager, and Tracy will be here in about an hour—she had another appointment. So let’s go ahead and introduce ourselves over here.
[5:42] Victoria Andrews:
Hi, Victoria Andrews, formerly Marina District, now scribe for the night.
[5:47] Randy Williams:
Formerly of the Southern Territories. Stepped down a couple years ago.
[5:53] Chuck Coleman:
Chuck Coleman.
[6:01] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Okay, thank you. So, a week ago we were worried about the apocalypse, and now we have paradise outside—but we’re inside. Better safe than sorry. At least there were some moments there that were pretty bad.
So we’ve finally called the first meeting of the year. Several members’ terms have expired and they’re not official members, but I do want them to feel free to speak up and share because homeowners down here—you know—not to feel excluded. The only limitation is that you won’t be allowed to vote.
We also sent out a link for everybody to reapply, or if you know somebody who wants to apply to be on the Citizens Advisory Committee, please encourage them.
We have several topics tonight. One thing I heard loud and clear is that there was frustration that the meetings weren’t substantive enough. People wanted to have more input on meaningful things. So we have a couple of those tonight.
One is the committee structure. The structure we’ve had for several years is just not working. Committees don’t feel like they’re getting enough work. They’ll have two or three months of lots of work and then nothing for the rest of the year.
The thought was, can that be integrated into the Citizens Advisory Committee? Could we create subcommittees? We can try different approaches. Katherine, our City Manager, is going to walk us through that discussion to see what this committee wants to do.
[8:31] Katherine Caffrey:
As Deputy Mayor Steinmetz said, a few months ago the Council asked me to review the committee structure—not just for the City Council’s committees, but also the appointive committees. There are actually nine appointive committees—seven currently exist, and two more were recently added: the Planning Commission and the Airport Committee.
For a city our size, that’s a lot. We’ve heard from members that they don’t always find the role fulfilling. Some only meet two or three times a year. Others feel their talents aren’t being used. We’ve also had a lot of committee members leave, likely for those reasons.
Additionally, due to budget issues, we’ve reduced staff in several areas. Three staff who supported committees are no longer with the city. So this felt like a good time to restructure.
Some committees we’re not changing—Civil Service, the Lodging Tax Board, and the Police Advisory Board are staying the same. But for others, we proposed changes. On March 6, I presented a proposal to merge the Arts Commission, Human Services, and Senior Services into a new committee called the Community Enrichment Board, which would also include Parks & Rec programming.
The Council felt that blend wasn’t quite right. So tonight, we’re floating another idea: making those groups subcommittees of the Citizens Advisory Committee. This committee would be more active—not only doing your usual duties like budget input and general community issues—but also being the parent committee for more specialized subcommittees.
I’ve met with Senior Services, Human Services, and one member of the Arts committee. Reactions were mixed—some were open to it, others hesitant. So tonight, I’m looking for feedback: What do you think is working? What’s not? What would make this committee more effective?
Again, this is just an idea. We’re not making decisions tonight. Your input will help shape how we proceed.
[13:43] Unidentified Committee Member:
I think this is a brilliant idea as long as the subcommittees retain some form of autonomy. They should report to the Citizens Advisory Committee but continue to operate as they have. If we try to manage them directly, that could be disturbing to long-term members. Arts people aren’t Human Services people, and vice versa. We need to respect their specialties.
We could have liaisons—one member from each subcommittee comes to our meeting to report out. Maybe we have a chair or two to help coordinate that.
[15:32] Another Member:
Like a liaison system. Maybe two or three of us are assigned to subcommittees, and some of their members join ours. That could help with participation. Not to chair, but to represent and report back.
[17:10] Katherine Caffrey:
I think that could work well. Some committee members told me they only want to do their specific task, while others are open to more involvement. Maybe a liaison system lets us connect them without overburdening them. These meetings are already staffed, posted, and recorded. Subcommittees could meet more informally and report in.
We could make these meetings the central hub. That’s easier from a staffing standpoint, too. We’d just need a standing agenda item for committee reports.
Jean, could you explain how the Human Services subcommittee works?
[18:21] Jean:
Sure. Every year there’s a call for funding applications. The subcommittee reviews applications from various groups, checks their track record, evaluates proposals, and ranks them based on what we can afford.
It’s very intensive work. Most of the members’ terms have expired, but they’re all experienced in social services. They do a great job evaluating fit, duplication, and priorities. I’d love to bring them all back.
[19:54] Unidentified Member:
That’s helpful. The Arts Committee hasn’t been very active lately, but they used to pick the sculptures we have around town and organize concerts in the park. They also worked with the Legacy Foundation on events like the Art Gala.
[21:16] Katherine Caffrey:
We can talk more about Senior Services, Parks & Rec, and a potential Emerging Issues subcommittee.
Senior Services currently does some programming, like shred events. They want to be more involved, maybe reviving a volunteer program.
Parks & Rec would be new. This came from Councilmember Buxton. We don’t have a group giving input on rec programming. Parents feel we’re not meeting expectations. So this could start the conversation, even if there are resource limits.
Emerging Issues was something I made up. The idea is to have a group we can check in with when something pops up—like tonight’s Strategic Plan discussion. Again, just ideas—we’re open to anything.
[23:24] Buxton:
You touched on something—how does being a liaison help people feel more fulfilled? What’s our role in that?
[23:52] Katherine Caffrey:
Some only want to meet a couple times a year and that’s fine. Others want to be more involved but weren’t able to join this committee. So ideally, this structure allows them to attend these meetings and give input beyond their original area. I don’t have enough staff to support nine committees the way we did before. This helps us make it work.
[26:39] Another Committee Member:
It’s not that people don’t understand their role—they want to do more. But we don’t have the budget or staff to support that. We need a model that gives them ways to stay involved without needing a ton of resources.
[28:36] Committee Member:
The first question I always ask is about the budget. The numbers really tell the story. We can’t afford to have nine staffed committees. Subcommittees should be informal and operate without staff unless needed.
It’s time to face economic reality. We need to do what we can afford—and this model is viable. I’ve also seen this in membership organizations: an executive board with subcommittees, where all members are part of the larger group but take on different roles.
If everyone in the subcommittees was also part of the CAC, they could come to meetings, report out, and take back information. It would be a two-way street. We need regular meetings, even if not everyone can attend. First Wednesday of the month, for example.
At the UW Alumni Association, they invited me to continue after my term ended in a different role. We could have something like that here—people rolling in and out of functionality. For example, I have a nursing background—after my term here, I’ll apply to the Health and Human Services group. Later I might join the Arts Committee.
This model gives us flexibility. It could really work if we revise the rules about term limits.
[33:22] Katherine Caffrey:
That structure you just described—having a larger committee with subcommittees—is what we were thinking. It allows for flexibility and more collaboration. We’d also need to update the bylaws. Some of them are very outdated.
[38:02] Committee Member:
I finally figured that out. I agree with Chuck and Bettina and others—I like this setup. I like that it’s not broken down by neighborhood anymore. If I’m interested in Human Services, it shouldn’t matter where I live. Let people with talents join where they fit.
[39:07] Committee Member:
You mentioned moving away from neighborhood representation. Just to clarify, are we talking about the subcommittees? Because I think we still need that model in the overall committee structure.
[39:35] Chuck Coleman:
One reason I like this structure is that it lets things “cook” before they get to Council. Like the sixgill shark idea—that came in as a fully formed proposal. Great work was done, but there wasn’t broader vetting. If we had a structure like this, it would’ve had more eyes on it and would’ve felt less rushed.
[41:01] Committee Member:
Yes—and committees need to carry weight. If we have experts giving input, their recommendations should carry real weight, especially on issues like land development.
If I hire a lawyer, I listen to them. Why not listen to subject-matter experts on our own committees? That should be in the bylaws.
[42:35] Katherine Caffrey:
This is all really helpful. I still need to finish talking to the Arts Commission. Then I’ll consolidate this feedback and go back to Council. If they want to move forward, we’ll get into the details and come back to you.
[43:27] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Next topic: strategic planning. We’re going to develop a Strategic Plan for the city. Katherine will walk us through the process, and then we’ll talk about what the CAC sees as priorities.
[44:02] Katherine Caffrey:
This will not be your only opportunity to provide input—it’s the beginning of a long conversation. I sent out a PowerPoint last night. This version is condensed from what I shared with Council on March 6.
The Council unanimously supported moving forward. We posted a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for teams to help with strategic planning and facilitation. Many firms do this for cities.
In November, the Council adopted mission, vision, and values. This plan puts that into action.
A strategic plan outlines long-term priorities and goals. It includes measurable actions and helps us allocate resources based on community input. It prevents us from losing focus amid the volume of issues.
I heard in my interview process and since starting that the community wants to know where the city is going. This is the roadmap.
This plan should complement, not replace, things like the Marina Capital Plan or the Downtown Plan. We have many documents, but nothing that clearly says what we’re trying to achieve in the next 10 years. This plan becomes our North Star.
[46:47] Katherine Caffrey (continued):
Strategic planning is best done with an outside facilitator. They bring objectivity and experience. They’ll use input from the Council, staff, and community. That makes the final plan more trustworthy.
There will be robust public engagement. We’re not sure yet what that will look like—surveys, town halls, or this committee taking the lead—but it’s a priority.
We expect to spend around $50,000–$75,000. That’s not cheap, but a good plan pays off long-term.
It typically takes 6 months to a year. The Council will likely have a retreat to focus on this. Staff will help build the action items. Then the full plan comes back to Council.
[53:00] Katherine Caffrey:
Some examples: Shoreline has 18 framework goals. Bothell has five buckets. My last city had six goals with measurable objectives. Renton did a high-level plan. Issaquah has a robust online dashboard.
I’m not saying we’ll start at Issaquah’s level, but it’s good to know what’s possible.
Ultimately, this document should guide budget decisions and help the community understand where we’re going. It’s a living document.
[54:04] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Let’s start the priority discussion. Victoria has agreed to be our scribe—thank you. Let’s talk about what kind of community we want to be in five to ten years.
[56:24] Committee Member:
We’re a Waterland City. That identity is key. We should prioritize our marine character—boating, beach town feel, maritime culture.
[57:25] Committee Member:
We need to solve our communication problem. It’s holding us back. Everything from misinformation online to finding basic documents like the RFQ you mentioned—it all takes too much effort. We need a Communications Officer and to treat communication as a core city function.
[59:55] Committee Member (continued):
We keep having the same conversations over and over—branding, priorities, etc. We need a living document that captures our organizational knowledge and history. Right now, we’re wasting time by not tracking and reusing our intellectual capital.
[1:02:13] Committee Member (continued):
We absolutely need a Communications Officer. And we need to invest in collecting and organizing our existing documents, meeting records, and strategic ideas. We’re repeating the same conversations that were had a year ago, or five years ago. That’s wasted time. Let’s get the foundation in place first, even before hiring a consultant, so we can make the most of their time and our money.
[1:04:02] Katherine Caffrey:
You’re absolutely right about communications being a longstanding concern. But I want to clarify that this strategic planning process is not just about communication—it’s about overall vision. Today, our senior leadership team worked on that very issue. Their goal was to create a prosperous, vibrant, and safe community. That’s what decisions should track to.
This plan is bigger than just fixing the website or outreach—it’s about creating a long-term, guiding framework. But your point is valid: people want to see results, and they’re frustrated if they don’t.
[1:05:01] Committee Member:
Exactly. That’s why I’m saying start with what we can afford. Gather what we already know. Then we can break this down into steps. If we keep looking at the total price tag without organizing first, it’ll feel overwhelming.
[1:05:56] Committee Member:
If I could just summarize: our biggest unmet challenges are capturing existing intellectual capital, restructuring around communication, and doing both within our means.
[1:06:01] Mar:
I’d like to see Des Moines be a safe, prosperous community—like Auburn does with Petpalooza. I get their flyers every year and go. That’s an example of something we could do here with our own flair. We have the marina, the Redondo boardwalk—there’s a lot of assets here that we just don’t promote.
[1:06:56] Committee Member:
Yes—and don’t forget we have a beautiful state park right in the middle of the city. That’s huge. We should connect it with our other attractions and make it part of the story we tell about Des Moines.
[1:07:21] Another Member:
I keep hearing the word “connected.” That’s what we need to be: vibrant and connected. Events like Petpalooza tie into bigger goals like safety and economic development. We need better internal and external communication. If you’re not on Facebook, you miss half of what’s going on.
[1:08:02] Committee Member (continued):
We also have a big opportunity with the new library. Once people discover the Mo (Midway), they’ll want to know what else is here. What if there was a shuttle between the library and the farmers market? That could serve commuters and build awareness of local activities.
We need to stay small-town in feel but use tools like texting, Instagram, and modern outreach to stay connected.
[1:09:12] Committee Member:
I agree—our community has potential to be vibrant, meaning people are active, kids are doing things here instead of in other cities, our parks are being used, and our businesses are thriving without needing aggressive advertising.
[1:10:56] Committee Member:
Also, we should collaborate more with Highline College. It’s a great resource. They run programs that nobody hears about—like kids learning 3D printing. There’s no outreach. These are opportunities we’re missing.
[1:11:32] Colleen G.:
One word I haven’t heard is “collaboration.” Other communities do a great job with it—like Burien. Their businesses support each other and hold joint events. I’ve lived here 21 years, and I don’t feel that same community spirit in Des Moines. I want that.
And I’ll echo Highline College too—they do amazing weekend volunteer-led programs, and I only know about it because of my daughter’s dog training. It should be common knowledge, but it’s not.
[1:12:56] Colleen G. (continued):
Also, we haven’t seen much downtown growth in 20 years. A few restaurants come and go, but there’s no big change. 24th Ave needs fixing. It’s a mess.
[1:14:04] Chuck Coleman:
Small update: the road project near Pacific Middle School has been delayed because of coordination issues with Puget Sound Energy. It should be done by October 2025. Someone from the community even poured concrete into potholes themselves—it’s that bad.
[1:15:01] Chuck Coleman (continued):
Katherine, what exactly are we asking for in the RFQ?
[1:15:08] Katherine Caffrey:
We’re asking for qualifications, not proposals yet. We want to see examples of previous work with other cities, their community engagement approach, and some references. The idea is that we’ll choose someone who can help facilitate—not direct—the process. This will be a community-led plan.
[1:16:55] Committee Member:
Yes, and that kind of facilitation work is what we’re paying for. It’s not someone coming in to analyze and tell us what to do. It’s about guiding us and helping synthesize our input into something cohesive and actionable.
[1:17:22] Katherine Caffrey:
Exactly. And the long-range financial forecasting we’re also working on is a separate thing. That’s more technical and less about community visioning. But the strategic plan? That’s about us—our community and Council.
[1:17:55] Committee Member:
Everything we’re saying now, we’ve said before—over a year ago, even. We had stickies on the wall back then. And while all these words and priorities sound great, we need to make sure they don’t just end up as feel-good ideas again.
[1:18:47] Katherine Caffrey:
I encourage you to look at the plans I linked in the March 6 Council packet. Many of those start with big ideas but then turn into tangible, trackable goals. That’s what we want too.
[1:19:02] Jean:
Can I make a suggestion? Everyone’s brought up good points, but I think we haven’t clearly defined what a vision actually is. What are we aiming for? What do we want this city to look like in five or ten years?
[1:19:56] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
The Council already did vision, mission, and values at the retreat. But you’re right, Jean—we need to make sure that aligns with what the community wants too.
[1:20:04] Jean:
Exactly. Everything we’ve talked about—public safety, communication, businesses—what purpose are they serving? To what end? For me, I envision Des Moines being the best place in the region to raise a family and help kids succeed. Everything else feeds into that.
[1:21:01] Committee Member:
That includes public safety, economic diversity, education—all the pieces that make up a healthy family-oriented community.
[1:21:45] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
It’s a good framework to ask: are we building a place where families thrive? It helps clarify why we prioritize certain things.
[1:22:21] Committee Member:
We already have mission, vision, and values. So maybe we focus tonight’s discussion on filling in the blanks with priorities that support those goals. That’s what this strategic planning process is about—translating values into actions.
[1:23:25] Committee Member:
Let’s go through the remaining bullet points one by one so we stay organized and don’t lose track of ideas.
[1:24:55] Committee Member:
I think one pressing unmet need is revitalizing our business environment. That’s what my daughters in their 20s talk about—having more places to go, more activity. We’ve had too many shuttered businesses for too long.
[1:25:54] Committee Member:
Right now, people drive through Des Moines and don’t stop. We don’t have a grocery store downtown, or a post office, or any must-stop places. We need to take advantage of that constant traffic flow.
[1:26:48] Committee Member:
A big opportunity coming up is SR-509 and transit-oriented development. There’s a $2.5 billion investment in the north end—light rail, housing, and infrastructure. That can be a huge asset if we connect to it strategically.
[1:27:55] Committee Member:
Let’s not put all our eggs in the Marina District. We should focus on opportunities citywide. Light rail brings Last Mile challenges—we should be talking about how people will get to the station. That fits right into our long-term financial health.
[1:28:10] Committee Member:
Agreed. And it’s not about picking one district over another. It’s about capturing value across the city.
[1:29:02] Committee Member:
We also need to think about ferry service—either a fast ferry or foot ferry. That could open up new economic and transportation opportunities.
[1:29:40] Committee Member:
And branding! We need to promote Des Moines better. People need to know about our events and amenities—more PR, more communications. That directly impacts our financial sustainability by bringing people in.
[1:30:10] Committee Member:
I want to add the Marina connection as a priority. It’s one of our strongest assets, and we need to maximize it.
[1:30:55] Committee Member:
Years ago, the Waterland Festival gave Des Moines a strong identity. When it faded out, we lost a big piece of community branding. Maybe we don’t bring it back exactly, but we should have something like it again.
[1:31:45] Committee Member:
I remember the Waterland Festival as a kid. But it was parents—adults—who put it on. Now those kids are grown, and we need to step up as adults and build the next thing. We’ve lost that sense of civic duty to the next generation.
[1:32:20] Committee Member:
And that ties into which groups are underrepresented or underserved in Des Moines. The needs of young adults and middle-aged adults aren’t always being met. There’s not enough that’s affordable or fun.
[1:32:45] Committee Member:
I’d add minorities to that list too. Representation in city leadership and committees is very limited.
[1:33:45] Jean:
There’s a demographic divide we need to recognize: older populations here are mostly white. But our school kids—and their families—are far more diverse. We need to build a city that bridges that gap and serves both groups.
[1:34:55] Committee Member:
I’d love to see more veteran involvement too. We don’t have a strong local American Legion or VFW presence. That’s a missing opportunity for community building.
[1:35:59] Committee Member:
One idea that came up years ago was a marine education center or aquarium. Something public-facing, family-oriented, tied to our identity. That could be a long-term goal—but it fits our themes of community, youth, and marine culture.
[1:37:26] Committee Member:
From a transportation equity standpoint, we need to address the lack of east-west transit. Right now, if you don’t have a car, you’re stuck. Metro doesn’t run enough service across town. It’s a huge barrier for people trying to access services or get to the marina.
[1:39:20] Committee Member:
Let’s also look at underserved populations like young adults in their 20s who want something vibrant, affordable, and fun. And we can’t ignore that minorities are still underrepresented.
[1:40:05] Jean:
We need to recognize that our older residents and our younger families often live in very different worlds. We have to make sure both are represented and supported.
[1:40:55] Committee Member:
I’d like to see more veteran engagement. We don’t have local VFW or American Legion chapters that are really active in Des Moines. There’s a population here that’s not being tapped into—and they often want to be involved in community service.
[1:41:32] Committee Member:
I think Measure and Track—the data-driven stuff—might come later, but for now we need to focus on structure and participation.
[1:41:59] Committee Member:
Okay, last topic: Where do we go from here?
[1:42:12] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
We’ve heard some great ideas—like revisiting neighborhood representation and how we bring in new people. If we want to reach different parts of the community, the neighborhood model is a good tool for that.
[1:42:49] Committee Member:
Yes, and frankly, this room tonight isn’t very diverse. We need to be mindful of that. If we don’t have a structure that encourages outreach, we’re only going to hear from the same groups again and again.
[1:43:35] Committee Member:
We need to go out and recruit participation. It won’t happen just by putting up a notice. The Marina District, for example, gets a lot of attention, but not enough representation. Maybe we hold meetings in other neighborhoods to draw different voices.
[1:44:46] Paul (City Staff):
At the federal level, yes, there’s concern about how we’re tracking and supporting diversity. But right now, we’re also under a lot of pressure just to get reimbursements done. The focus is on completing the work—but we’re trying to stay true to our values while being careful.
[1:47:24] Jean:
If anyone wants to look at data, the Superintendent of Public Instruction has great demographic breakdowns by school. You can see the differences between older and younger generations—it reflects our evolving community.
[1:48:03] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
So it sounds like there’s consensus: we want to keep the neighborhood model and keep both primary and alternate members for each district. That ensures coverage when someone can’t attend.
[1:49:05] Committee Member:
It’s hard to record meetings in other venues, but that shouldn’t stop us. We can figure that out later. There are ways to make it work.
[1:49:25] Bettina:
We need to fix the process around onboarding and offboarding members. People who time out should be acknowledged for their service, and we should maintain a roster to keep committees filled. That way, we’re not left with empty seats, like what happened with Human Services.
[1:50:52] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Agreed. We should reach out to neighborhoods and invite people to reapply. The CAC should be a pipeline into the other committees too. The goal is participation and continuity.
[1:51:26] Committee Member:
We had paused committee applications while we waited to see what Council wanted to do with the structure. So that’s part of the holdup—we didn’t want to reappoint people and then disband the committee they were joining. But yes, we’re reviewing those now.
[1:52:14] Committee Member:
Thanks for letting us continue participating even after our terms ended. This transition time made it confusing, but it’s good to keep people engaged.
[1:52:56] Bettina:
We also need new people. Fresh perspectives. If someone new wants to take my spot, great—I can move to another committee. That’s how we keep energy and new ideas flowing. Term limits can still be flexible.
[1:53:59] Committee Member:
I love that we’re bringing all the committees together under this structure. It raises awareness of what’s available and keeps us from operating in silos.
[1:54:40] Committee Member:
Do you think the rest of the Council will support this idea—that the CAC would act as a hub with subcommittees?
[1:54:53] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Yes. I would place my bets on a majority of the Council supporting this. I’ve heard strong interest in improving engagement and effectiveness.
[1:55:07] Committee Member:
So let’s talk meeting schedule. Is the first Wednesday of each month good for everyone?
[1:55:27] Committee Member:
Actually, a lot of groups meet that day. I had to miss two other meetings to be here tonight. The fourth Wednesday might be better.
[1:56:27] General consensus:
Yes—fourth Wednesday of the month sounds better for availability.
[1:57:34] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Sounds like a consensus. Any objections? Okay, fourth Wednesday it is.
[1:58:03] Committee Member:
Are we meeting in April?
[1:58:17] Katherine Caffrey:
By the fourth Wednesday in May, I should have updates for you—conversations with the Arts Commission, feedback from Council, and more structure to work from. I don’t expect to have that all ready by April, so I’d recommend skipping that one.
[1:59:05] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Let’s target May. If there’s a reason to meet earlier, we’ll let you know. But we want to make sure meetings are purposeful.
[1:59:47] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
Okay, do I have a motion to adjourn?
[1:59:53] Committee Members:
So moved. Seconded.
[1:59:56] Deputy Mayor Steinmetz:
All in favor? Aye. Thank you, everyone.