Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReviewOfCityBoardsCommissionsAndCommittees 2017 REVIEW OF CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES JUNE 9, 2017 MARK A. ROHLOFF 1 INTRODUCTION The Oshkosh Common Council assigned the City Manager a goal for 2017 to assist Council in evaluating the city’s boards and commissions. As part of this evaluation, Council asked the City Manager to work with staff to identify possible consolidation of boards and commissions. Council also inquired regarding the need for assignment of a Council liaison to the various boards and commissions, assuming that not all commissions requir e a Council liaison. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify boards and commissions that are required of the city either by statute or indirectly required because of certain policy decisions made by Council. The review will also identify boards and commissions that have been created by Council policy that did not necessarily require a board, commission, or committee (BCC). Additionally, this review will identify Council liaisons that are assigned to these committees, and whether or not these assignments are required by statute or created by local option. BCCs will also be reviewed to identify any functional connection between the committees and their respective departments. REQUIRED BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS As shown on Appendices A and B, City Attorney Lynn Lorenson has identified 10 BCCs that are required by state statute or are necessary because the city council has taken an action that requires the creation of a board, (e.g. creation of a BID, maintaining a public library, adopting a redevelopment plan). The required boards and commissions are as follows:  Business Improvement District (BID)  Board of Zoning Appeals (BOA)  Board of Review (BOR)  Extraterritorial Zoning Committee (ETZ)  Housing Authority  Landmarks Commission  Library Board  Plan Commission  Police And Fire Commission (PFC)  Redevelopment Authority (RDA) Because of the complexity of running a city of this size, mandated BCCs are unlikely to change, but making recommendations regarding scope or the core mission of these BCCs is possible as long as authority prescribed by statutes is not removed. 2 LOCAL OPTION BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Staff has identified an additional 14 BCCs that have been created by Council. This does not include the Diversity Committee that Council recently directed staff to begin developing as a committee. These 14 BCCs are not required by state law but are by local option, and may be amended, consolidated, or eliminated at the Council's discretion. These boards are as follows:  Arts & Beautification Committee  Bike And Pedestrian Committee  Committee On Aging  Equal Opportunity Housing Commission  Grand Opera House Advisory Board  Long-Range Finance Committee  Museum Board  Parking Utility Board  Parks Advisory Board  Rental Housing Committee  Storm Water Advisory Board  Sustainability Advisory Board  Traffic Review Advisory Board  Transit Advisory Board In addition to the above BCCs, there are other committees that are not part of the city organization. These include the Oshkosh Opera House Foundation (OOHF) and the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Board. Council has representation on the OOHF and the CVB at the request of these independent boards and takes these assignments into consideration when assigning council members to BCCs. COUNCIL LIAISONS TO BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES Currently, there are 15 BCCs that have Council liaisons specifically identified. No BCC is required by statute to have any Council liaison or representative. The 15 Council liaison assignments are the result of being included in local ordinances passed by Council. There have been other BCCs in recent years that have asked for a Council liaison, but no additional assignments have been made due to the number of current assignments. On average, Council members serve on at least two BCCs. In some cases, Council members serve on as many as four BCCs. The two assignments to the Convention and Visitors Bureau Board and the Grand 3 Opera House Foundation Board are not formally recognized as Council assignments. This means that there are 17 BCCs and other assignments that are recognized by the Council. Staff conducted a survey of other cities and villages operating under Wisconsin State Statutes Chapter 64 (City Manager form of government) to identify how BCC assignments are conducted in other municipalities. As shown on Appendix C, the number of Council liaison assignments vary by city. In discussing these survey results with other communities, the preference is to limit Council assignments so as not to dilute the effectiveness of individual Council members. At the same time, Councils recognize the need to be engaged and support their BCCs. The result is a higher number of Council liaison assignments than desired, but are deemed necessary. CONSIDERATIONS BEFORE REVIEW OF OPTIONS Prior to studying options that may be available to Council, staff identified several questions that may be worthwhile to ask prior to considering the consolidation or elimination of any BCC: 1. Can any of the 14 local option BCC’s be absorbed into any of the 10 required BCC’s? 2. Do any of the 14 local option BCC’s share a compatible mission or a common liaison/department? 3. Are any of the missions of the local option BCCs outdated or in need of reconsideration? Are any BCCs duplicating the work of another BCC? 4. Can any of the BCCs be considered an ad hoc committee to address specific issues on an as needed basis? 5. Instead of creating a new BCC, can issues be referred to an existing BCC as ad hoc assignments? In reviewing these questions, staff identified BCCs as they are assigned to specific departments. These assignments are shown on Appendix D. The purpose of pointing this out is so that Council recognizes that in some cases, staff is being assigned to multiple committees and is required to commit the necessary resources to prepare and support each individual agenda. As shown on Appendix A, even with this significant investment in staff resources, multiple meetings are cancelled due to the lack of a quorum. Staff also reviewed the history of the BCCs, and recognizes that many of the local option committees were created in response to Councils desire for greater public input into a specific policy area. The options presented to Council take the above questions into consideration so that Council can review whether or not any consolidation or elimination of a respective BCC is warranted. 4 OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Based on the above considerations, Staff has identified the following options that Council may wish to consider. A brief discussion follows each option for Council's consideration. The options are as follows: CONSOLIDATE PARKING UTILITY AND TRAFFIC REVIEW ADVISORY BOARD INTO A SINGLE PARKING AND TRAFFIC COMMITTEE; OR CONSOLIDATE WITH TRANSIT COMMITTEE INTO A SINGLE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE The Parking Utility and Traffic Review Advisory Board are optional committees created by Council. Each of the committees are managed and staffed by employees from the Transportation Department, and both Traffic and Parking have similar goals in terms of managing traffic (on street and off). As a result, there are some efficiencies that could be created by the consolidation of these two boards. Both of these boards have limited agendas, and as shown on Appendix A, have had multiple meetings canceled over the past two years due to a lack of a quorum or lack of agenda items. The consolidation of these two boards would give a more meaningful purpose to a single board and result in a more efficient use of staff time. Alternately, both local option committees could be consolidated with the Transit Advisory Board into a single Transportation Advisory Committee. This would make more efficient use of Transportation Department staff. COMBINE ARTS AND BEAUTIFICATION AND THE GRAND OPERA HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD INTO THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION The Landmarks Commission has an overall mission of preserving historical structures and recognizing public art and architecture. The Arts and Beautification Committee was created a few years ago to address public art. Its need and its mission are both narrow, lending itself to being assigned to another board or commission. Similarly, the work of The Grand Opera House Advisory Board is purely advisory and limited to facility issues that are also coordinated between city staff and the Opera House Foundation Board. The Grand Opera House is recognized as an historical landmark, and it may be appropriate to have the Landmarks Commission be responsible for performing the functions of The Grand Opera House Advisory Board. The disadvantage is that the Landmarks Commission typically has agenda items to address, and it would be necessary to make sure that the work of the Public Arts and Beautification and The Grand Opera House Advisory Board do not overburden a 5 consolidated committee. Given the limited scope of the original Public Arts and Beautification Committee and The Grand Opera House Advisory Board, consolidation may be warranted. ELIMINATE THE GRAND OPERA HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD The Grand Opera House (GOH) Advisory Board was initially created to oversee the operations to the GOH following the city’s acquisition of the facility in the 1980’s. Shortly thereafter, the Oshkosh Opera House Foundation (OOHF) was created to manage the daily operation of the GOH in accordance with an agreement between the City and Foundation. The purpose of the GOH Advisory Board was essentially transferred, but the Board remained in existence to review capital expenditures made by the City at the Grand. Because the Foundation has essentially supplanted the Advisory Board in purpose, it may be time to eliminate the Advisory Board altogether, or consolidate some capital expenditure review with another BCC. RESTRUCTURE THE LONG-RANGE FINANCE COMMITTEE AS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE Since its creation, the Long-Range Finance Committee has sought out projects that may be of value to them. The Long-Range Financial Committee is not charged with reviewing annual financial documents, such as the budget or capital improvement plan. It is not practical for this committee to be inserted into annual financial reviews, as the amount of time needed to prepare the CIP and annual budget for Council consideration is already time-consuming. Adding another layer of review that is not required by law will make it difficult to give this group additional financial oversight and could undermine Council’s authority. At the same time, reviews of items such as our investment policy and fund balance policy are important considerations, and citizen input is valuable. It may be appropriate to put these types of assignments on a review schedule for every five years and task an ad hoc committee to advise Council on any changes or to provide reports on fund balance and investment policy issues. RESTRUCTURE THE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE The Equal Opportunity Housing Commission is one board that is required in order to be compliant with housing laws for federal funding. With the possible loss of the CDBG program, this requirement may end up being a moot point. However, should complaints regarding 6 housing opportunities become an issue, it would be appropriate to have an independent citizen committee to review these types of issues. I have not had a single equal opportunity housing complaint in the nine years I have been with the city. For that reason, I believe we need to consider making this an ad hoc committee and assembling the group as necessary in the event that a housing issue arises. The City will continue to contract with the Fair Housing Council however, to educate tenants and landlords on housing discrimination, investigate complaints and resolve issues, as they have done for many years. RESTRUCTURE THE RENTAL HOUSING COMMITTEE AS AN AD HOC COMMITTEE OR CONSOLIDATE WITH THE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION As Council is aware, there was limited demand for members of the newly created Rental Housing Committee. The controversy surrounding the creation of the Rental Inspection Ordinance has likely deterred some people from participating, but there remains a need to address issues related to managing our Rental Inspection Ordinance. Rather than create a formal committee, it may be suitable to create an ad hoc committee and bring citizens together for an initial review and perhaps reassemble a citizens group in a few years to review the effectiveness of the program and make recommendations on changes. Alternatively, the responsibility of this committee could be assigned to the Equal Housing Opportunity Commission, as this commission does not regularly meet and could perform the duties of both local groups. CONSOLIDATE THE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE AND SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD INTO A SINGLE GROUP AND/OR CONSOLIDATE WITH THE PLAN COMMISSION The multidisciplinary nature of the Plan Commission requires representatives from various departments to be present at Plan Commission meetings. This meeting is not simply for Planning and Community Development, but also for Public Works (including Utilities), Transportation, Parks, Police, and Fire. Staff use this approach for site plan reviews and for special event coordination. Similarly, the missions of the Bike and Pedestrian Committee and Sustainability Advisory Board cross multiple departments. In many cases, these boards and commissions are concerned that they may be inadvertently overlooked because there is no mandate that they review items that are brought before other boards and commissions, such as the Parks Advisory Board or Plan Commission. Additionally, the Bike and Pedestrian Committee and the Sustainability Advisory Board have limited scope and therefore limited 7 agenda items. Meanwhile, staff is required to assist in the preparation for these meetings as they do for any board or commission. It may be appropriate to combine these two boards and give a broader scope of work, or perhaps consolidate those groups into the Plan Commission. The consolidation of these groups could provide a greater pool of quality citizens able to work on a broader scope of issues under the umbrella of a single Plan Commission or a combined Sustainability / Bike and Pedestrian Committee. It will also prevent items from being overlooked by consolidating their review under a single committee. REMOVE CITY COUNCIL LIAISONS AS REQUIRED MEMBERS Council membership is not required by state law for BCCs. Rather than making Council membership a requirement, Council may wish to consider making these assignments an ex officio assignment, whereby the Council member is not required to attend the meeting, and does not factor into the quorum requirements for the meeting. The value of the Council Member as a liaison comes from their insight into the committee’s work and their ability to share that information with the Council when and if items are brought before Council for consideration. This value may still be achieved with ex officio assignments rather than making them a required member of the committee. An ex officio membership with no vote may discourage attendance by Council Members, but the Council Member’s value as a liaison would still remain, so attendance should remain an expectation for each Council Member. CHANGE FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS As noted in Appendix A, there are a number of committees that have canceled due to lack of quorum or lack of items on the agenda. Additionally, the frequency of meetings may be a deterrent for some committee members. It may be appropriate to review the BCCs and determine if less frequent meetings are warranted. Some examples of BCCs that could hold fewer meetings include the Long Range Finance Committee, Public Arts and Beautification, Advisory Parks Board, Parking Utility, Traffic Advisory Board, Transit Advisory Board, and Storm Water Utility Appeals Board. CHANGE MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA FOR LOCAL OPTION COMMITTEES Mayor Cummings and I have been holding quarterly meeting with the Chairs of all Boards and Commissions to discuss issues of membership. One of the items discussed is that there are many people who are interested in serving as members and may have community ties that 8 would make them productive members, but the lack of city residency prevents them from doing so. While the 10 required boards and commissions have residency and/or membership requirements, the remaining 14 committees do not have any such restrictions that cannot be changed. The Council may wish to amend restrictions that are under their control. The groups that are more advisory in nature may benefit most, as they do not have formal authority and Council review is still available if concerns about residency arise. CONCLUSION In addition to assigning this goal to the City Manager for 2017, the reassignment / realignment of our boards and commissions are also a component of the 2017–2018 City of Oshkosh Strategic Plan. This review is not intended to diminish the work or value of citizen boards and commissions, but rather respect their purpose. Correspondingly, it is our hope that the options outlined for consideration in this report will provide the proper structures necessary to efficiently, effectively, and comprehensively consider the issues that impact our community. I welcome and anticipate discussion and debate on this key component of our representative government. Appendix A Name Statute Ref. Ord or Ref Number of Members Council Rep. Term of Citizen Members Liaison Frequency of Meeting Number of Meetings Cancelled or Not Held Over the Past 24 Months Required Committees (10) BID Board 66.1109 2-38 10+2 alt.None 3 years Dept.of Comm. Development Monthly 0 Landmarks Commission 62.27(7) (em) 2-48 6+2 alt 2 3 years Dept. of Comm. Development Monthly 0 Library Board Chapter 43 2-49 9 +S’int of Schools +up to 5 add None 3 years Library Director Monthly 0 Plan Commission 62.23 2-52 9+2 alt 1 3 years Dept. of Comm. Development 2 per month 2-4 Extraterritorial Zoning Committee 62.23(7a)(c)2-52.1 3+2 alt None 3 years Dept. of Comm. Development As needed per year 0 Board of Police & Fire Commissioners 62.13 2-53 5 None 5 years Dept. of Administrative Services Monthly 7 due to no items on agenda Board of Review 70.46 2-56 5+2 alt None 5 years City Clerk/City Attorney Varies on objections 0 Board of Zoning Appeals 62.23(7)(e)2-59 5+2 alt None 3 years Dept. of Comm. Development Monthly 4 each year Housing Authority Board 66.1201-66.1211 None 5, no more than 2 city 1 (NR)5 years Redevelopment Authority 66.1333 Res 03- 65 7 1(NR)Dept. of Comm. Development Every other month 1-2 each year Appendix A Name Statute Ref. Ord or Ref Number of Members Council Rep. Term of Citizen Members Liaison Frequency of Meeting Number of Meetings Cancelled or Not Held Over the Past 24 Months Local Option Committees (14) Long Range Finance Committee None 2-44 9 2 3 years Director of Finance Monthly 7 Sustainability Advisory Board None 2-42 9 1(NR)3 years Dept. of Comm. Development Monthly 1 Rental Housing None 2-59.2 7 1(NR)3 years Dept. of Comm. Development TBD 0 Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee None 2-39 7 1 3 years Dept. of Comm. Development Monthly 1 Commission on Equal Opportunity in Housing 106.50 2-43 5 None 3 years Dept. of Comm. Development None Never called Public Arts & Beautification Committee None 2-47 7+2 alt 1 3 years Dept. of Comm. Development Monthly 3 Committee on Aging None 2-37 9 1 3 years Senior Services Manager Advisory Park Board None 2-51 9 1 3 years Parks Director Monthly 7 Parking Utility Commission None 2-50 5 1 3 years Director of Transportation Monthly 12 Traffic Review & Advisory Board None 2-57 7 1 3 years Director of Transportation Monthly 7 Appendix A Local Option Committees (14)continued: Transit Advisory Board None 2-58 7 1 4 years Director of Transportation Monthly 11 Advisory Grand Opera House Board None 2-45 11 1 3 years Manager of General Services 4 per year Feb, May, Aug & Nov 1 Public Museum Board None 2-54 7+2 alt None 3 years Museum Director Monthly 0 Storm Water Utility Appeals Board 66.0805(6) Operation & management assigned to Director of Public Works Section 14-3 Municipal Code 2-60 5 None 3 years Director of Public Works Every 4-6 weeks 5 Appendix A Name Statute Ref. Ord or Ref Number of Members Council Rep. Term of Citizen Members Liaison Frequency of Meeting Number of Meetings Cancelled or Not Held Over the Past 24 Months Non-City Committees (2) Convention & Visitors Bureau Board 15 1 Council Member (Herman) Every other Month 0 Grand Opera House Foundation Board Council Member (Pech) NR = Not Required Appendix B City of Oshkosh Boards and Commissions Appendix C # of Boards/# of Boards,# of Commissions/etc. created Boards, etc. Citizen by code, not w Council City Committees by statute Liaison Notes Oshkosh 24 14 15 City identifies 10 boards, etc. created according to statute; others are created by code. Platteville 23 14 21 Some of committees are joint agencies for intergovernmental services, likely formed by contract. Fond du Lac 21 10 15 Janesville 14 8 8 City identifies 6 boards, etc. created according to statute; others created by ordinance/policy. Fort Atkinson 12 10 11 City of Oshkosh Board and Commission Survey Spring 2017 Appendix D DISTRIBUTION OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES BASED ON PRIMARY DEPARTMENT’S ASSIGNMENTS Administrative Services -2 Grand Opera House Advisory Board Police and Fire Commission Finance -1 Long Range Finance Committee Museum -1 Museum Board Library –1 Library Board Public Works –1 Storm Water Utility Transportation –3 Parking Utility Commission Traffic Review Board Transit Advisory Board Parks -2 Advisory Parks Board Committee on Aging Community Development –12 Arts and Beautification Committee Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Bid Board Board of Appeals Board of Review Equal Opportunity in Housing Committee Extraterritorial Zoning Committee Landmarks Plan Commission Redevelopment Authority Rental Inspections Sustainability Advisory Board Other/Misc.-3 Housing Authority Grand Opera House Foundation Oshkosh Convention & Visitors Bureau