06.11.2026 CEC_FINAL_REPORT_PRESENTATION.PDF

Final Report
Community Engagement and Connection Council Subcommittee
June 11, 2026

Summary
The objective of the Community Engagement & Connection Council Subcommittee 
was to examine the city’s methods and activities related to community engagement 
and connection and evaluate opportunities to strengthen community relationships to 
increase community involvement, collaboration, and participation.
The findings and recommendations are aligned with the following performance 
measures:
• PM 2.15 – Participating in City Decisions
• PM 2.21 – Satisfaction of Information Availability
• PM 3.34 – Community Health and Well-Being
1

What Was Examined
• Communication and Marketing
• Neighborhood Services
• Information Technology
• Youth perspective 
• Loneliness and Isolation Epidemic 
• Civic Engagement and Community Health Report
• Peer City comparison
• Community Input
2

Peer City Comparison Results
Scoring Scale of Engagement Practices
0 = Not present/ informal/ anecdotal
1 = Present but limited or informal
2 = Formalized, intentional, repeatable
3
City
Data Collection 
Methods
Civic Academies
Outreach 
Practices
Notable 
Practices
Skill Building & 
Leadership 
Pathways
Transparency 
Tools
Engagement 
Culture
Total 
Buckeye
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
12
Chandler
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
12
Goodyear
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
12
Dayton, OH
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
12
Scottsdale
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
10
Tempe
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
Glendale
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
Avondale
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
Maricopa
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Surprise
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
5

Key Takeaways From Peer City Comparison
There is a 
consistent feedback 
and follow-through 
process
There are 
multiple layered 
outreach 
methods
There is an 
emphasis on 
civic learning 
opportunities
There is a clear 
pathway from 
engagement to 
consistent 
involvement
Engagement 
practices are tied to 
topics residents 
care about
4

Community Input Results
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Belonging, Closeness & Integration
Equity & Inclusion
Physical Environment & Service Infrastructure
Current & Future Engagement & Civic
Education
Transparency, Navigation, & Communication
Barriers
Community Networks, Social infrastructure, &
Cultural changes
Trust Building & Government Responsiveness
Totals
5

Key Takeaways From Community Input
People care most 
about feeling heard and 
seeing follow-through 
from the city
Engagement works 
better when it feels 
informal and 
community-based
Many residents don’t 
understand how to get 
involved.
Residents are more 
likely to engage when 
they see how their 
feedback influences 
decisions.
Fragmented 
information reduces 
awareness and 
participation.
Belonging comes from 
connection, not just 
participation
There’s strong interest 
in more neighborhood-
level engagement
6

Final Recommendations
1. Create a civic engagement academy.
2. Establish pathways to increase Boards and Commissions involvement with City Council on city policy and 
budget decisions.
3. Empower Neighborhood Advisory Commission to act as liaisons with Neighborhood Associations and HOAs. 
4. Elevate community correspondence.
5. Enhance the community feedback loop.
6. Develop a multi-family residential complex outreach program for renters. 
7. Consider new technology platforms and improve accessibility and search tools on existing digital platforms.
7

Discussion