The column by Rich Rifkin on Wednesday about the issue of commissions raises a couple of good points and serves as a broader jumping-off point for additional commentary.
As Mr. Rifkin points out, Roseville has nine, Woodland six, Vacaville four and Davis sixteen standing city commissions. The recommendation from the submittee composed of Mayor Don Saylor and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson was to reduce that number to ten by merging 10 smaller commissions into four.
As I have said previously, there are legitimate concerns about cost, time, and as you will shortly see and as Rich Rifkin argues, duplicative efforts. Those issues, I would argue as I think Mr. Rifkin does, can be resolved without ultimately watering down the process.
Mr. Rifkin is well-situated in this discussion because he serves on the Historical Resources Management Commission (HRMC), which is one of the commissions that would have been merged – really destroyed – by this process.
As he writes, “In one important respect, I understand the impetus to do this. A few of the issues that come before the historical resources panel later go to the more powerful Planning Commission. It has struck me as a waste of time for project proponents to have to first explain their plans and win approvals from us and then go to the Planning Commission and re-explain what it is they hope to do.”
He cites a good example of the duplicative nature of some of these commission discussions.
He writes, “There was a homeowner in East Davis in 2007, whose property is across the street from a city landmark listed in the National Register of Historic Places, who wanted to build a large addition to her small bungalow in her back yard. She also proposed remodeling the front porch.”
The HMRC’s job was to determine how and whether the proposal impacted the historical resource and whether the remodel would violate city guidelines.
He continued, “However, a controversial aspect of the proposal was her plan to build the addition only 20 inches from her north property line, a violation of the city’s minimum setback standards. In the public discussion at our meeting, a dozen neighbors, some of whom had other disputes with the homeowner, spoke out against the proposal. They were worried that this addition would harm the neighboring property and would set a bad precedent for Old East Davis.”
“The chairman of the Historical Resources Management Commission, who is a professional historical resources consultant, steered us away from the setback issue. We tried to focus just on the questions of the historical resource and the design guidelines. But inevitably, some commissioners joined the public discussion, weighing in on what worried the neighbors.”
The problem is that once they had weighed in on the issue, the Planning Commission had their turn and the same staff and members of the public came back, this time to a different purview.
As Mr. Rifkin points out, this type of duplicative effort would be eliminated under the proposal. However, as he notes, “the merger idea creates a whole new set of unnecessary problems they failed to consider.”
One point is that everyone on the new Planning Commission would be forced to become experts on historical preservation, despite the fact that the Planning Commission already meets twice a month with a full agenda.
“Because Davis is a certified local government, it is legally required to have a historical commission that meets all the guidelines laid out by the state Office of Historical Preservation,” Mr. Rifkin writes. “That means, among other things, the commissioners need to attend training sessions every year and at least two commissioners must be historical resources professionals. They also must enforce the city’s historical preservation ordinance, regularly survey our historical properties and identify potential resources.”
Thus, as Mr. Rifkin points out, putting the added burden on the already-busy Planning Commission lacks common sense. He then admonishes the subcommittee for failing to speak with members of the public before they hatched their proposal.
But as we have noted, the subcommittee eschewed the public process prior to coming up with their proposal. Mayor Saylor, who once admonished Councilmember Lamar Heystek for coming forward with a full-blown ordinance from an item by a councilmember, did exactly that himself.
Mr. Rifkin comes up with a better solution, suggesting that certain commissions be combined on an ad hoc basis when the business overlaps. He writes, “Most projects that come before the historical resources panel never go to the Planning Commission. But when they do, we should hold a joint meeting, with each body taking its votes on the aspect of the question in its area of expertise.”
“The next time a major new subdivision is proposed, for example, it would make sense to have the developer appear one time before a joint meeting of the Planning, Safety and Parking, Open Space and Habitat, Finance and Budget and Recreation and Park Commissions. We don’t have to merge them. But they could all benefit from looking at the big picture of a proposal,” he writes.
That would seem to be a very simple solution to an existing, legitimate problem. The previous commission subcommittee had proposals this spring for dealing with the issue of how development projects are heard by commissions, and I argued at that time that their solution was inadequate.
It makes very little sense to have each commission weigh in on only one small portion of the project. It created a huge mess when several different commissions heard the issue of revisiting Verona. But the subcommittee failed to produce a workable solution and instead seemed to attempt to water down the process.
The question of staff time is legitimate, but it has been overblown. Janice Bridge, a well-known Davis resident who serves as an alternate on the Senior Citizens Commission, in a letter to the Davis Enterprise wrote, “It is true that the city staff members are not paid extra for their liaison duties. However, it is equally true that each staff liaison assigned to a commission invests at least 100 work hours for that commission every year. This can be documented through the minutes kept for each commission meeting.”
She continued, “Most commission staffers are middle-level managers or higher, so 100 hours is equivalent to two weeks of work. Since I assume these city employees are not being required to work for no pay, the reduction of commission load from 20 to 14 is equivalent to a savings of three months’ salary for a middle-level manager.”
In an ironic twist, I have now asked city staff, through a public records request, to document the hours each staff liaison has used serving in their capacity to commissions.
On the surface, 100 hours seems an absurd hyperbole. Given that many commissions only meet ten times per year, it would seem unlikely that they spend ten hours on each meeting. That would mean 2.5 hours during the meeting and 7.5 hours doing preparation.
If they are having to do this amount of preparation, that is something that can also be addressed. However, I suspect for the most part, staff time in preparation is considerably less than even a one-to-one ratio.
There are times when there are lengthy staff reports, but those are for things like developments, which means they would (a) have to do them for other purposes and (b) have to do them even with a merger.
Let us look at a few examples. Staff probably spends a good amount of time preparing reports for the Planning Commission, but that is not going to change under a merger. The same is true for time spent preparing reports for the HRMC. So that kind of staff work does not change under a merger. Moreover, a number of the issues are likely to reach the council anyway and require staff work.
So we had the Senior Housing Guidelines, and while it is true that staff had to do considerable work on that, a merger would really not reduce any staff time.
Likewise, work for the Planning Commission, Finance and Budget, Business and Economic Development, and other like commissions will continue under a merger.
It is hard to imagine, even if staff liaisons were spending 100 hours on these reports, that the big projects are going away under a merger.
The time that would be saved is going to be the time spent going to additional commission meetings. But now we are talking about roughly 25 hours a year for 6 commissions, or a total of 150 hours among all of the liaisons, not for each liaison.
Perhaps we can generously add one additional hour for getting the agenda together, making copies, and other duties. So maybe we are saving 210 hours total.
That is something, but a far cry from the 100 hours per liaison. It certainly does not seem to be enough to justify the merger by itself.
But we will look further into that question as the city comes forth with real data, instead of seemingly implausible, hysterical claims.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “So we had the Senior Housing Guidelines, and while it is true that staff had to do considerable work on that, a merger would really not reduce any staff time.”
The Senior Housing Guidelines originated from the Senior Citizens Commission itself. City staff then edited and added to our original draft, to make sure it did not violate any city policies or ordinances and added some needed language. It was then sent along to the Social Services Commission for review and tweaked some more. But the idea and first draft version came from the Davis Senior Citizens commission itself, altho the final product was certainly came from the combined efforts of City Staff, the Social Services Commission and its ADA Subcommittee. So how do you quantify the dollar amount the city gained from the expertise that went into initially thinking up the idea of the Senior Housing Guidelines and providing the original draft to city staff?
As Rich Rifkin points out, each HRMC commissioner has knowledge that the Planning Commissioners and the CC do not. This is expertise the city is NOT PAYING FOR – it is voluntarily given. Perhaps part of the reason other cities do not have as many commissions is not because these cities do not need as many commissions, but because they would not be able to find the volunteers to man the commissions. One of Davis’s great strengths is the degree of talented citizen involvement there is in local governance.
dmg/rich rifkin: “”The next time a major new subdivision is proposed, for example, it would make sense to have the developer appear one time before a joint meeting of the Planning, Safety and Parking, Open Space and Habitat, Finance and Budget and Recreation and Park Commissions. We don’t have to merge them. But they could all benefit from looking at the big picture of a proposal,” he writes.”
This solution is already taking place. The Senior Citizens Commission and Social Services Commission have met jointly with respect to encouraging the city to adopt a Universal Design Ordinance. The joint meeting was at our commission’s suggestion, bc we felt our support might assist the Social Services Commission in their efforts in regard to encouraging the city to adopt such an ordinance. The idea of the Universal Design Ordinance is something the Social Services Commission has worked on before with great effort but frustratingly without much success. City staff (Danielle Foster) has been outstanding in facilitating the joint meetings between our two commissions, and lending both commissions the necessary expertise in facilitating this effort, because Danielle is more knowledgeable in regard to other countervailing interests the city may have.
The point I am making here is that joint meetings between commissions has been taking place, can continue to take place, and works very well in certain circumstances. But it is really up to the commissions themselves and city staff to identify the need for a joint meeting when an issue comes up that could be better addressed by the joint meeting solution. It is not a new idea, just an underutilized one.
And sometimes there are good reasons to flesh out an idea in one commission first, that may be more knowledgeable about one aspect of an issue, before bringing it forth in a joint meeting format. But what I can tell you is this – joint meetings between the City Council and city commissions has not been happening with great frequency. This means that oftentimes the City Council is not very aware of what their own commissions are doing. Because a joint meeting between the CC and the Senior Citizens Commission was cancelled this past year by decision of the CC, the Senior Citizens Commission brought our accomplishments to the CC in the form of a 5 minute slide show. But there was no opportunity for discussion or to ask questions – it was the only limited format our commission was allowed to apprise the CC of what our commission has been doing for the last 4 years (since the attempt to eliminate our commission in Dec 2006).
dmg: “Thus, as Mr. Rifkin points out, putting the added burden on the already-busy Planning Commission lacks common sense. He then admonishes the subcommittee for failing to speak with members of the public before they hatched their proposal.
But as we have noted, the subcommittee eschewed the public process prior to coming up with their proposal. Mayor Saylor, who once admonished Councilmember Lamar Heystek for coming forward with a full-blown ordinance from an item by a councilmember, did exactly that himself.”
4 years ago, when there was an attempt at eliminating the Senior Citizens Commission (by trying to slide it under the radar screen by putting the issue on the Consent Calendar not once but twice if I remember correctly), eventually the Social Services Commission was allowed to vote on the issue. But initially the Davis Senior Citizens Commission was kept from weighing in at all. In fact our commission was not allowed any new appointments, while all other commissions were permitted the appointment of new members.
The stress brought against our commission took us down to only four members, one with a heart condition, as other commissioners had to drop out for health reasons. After a lot of behind the scenes machinations, the Davis Senior Citizens Commission was finally able to weigh in on the issue, and voted a resounding “no” to the elimination/merging of their commission. When it was brought to light to the Social Services Commission that the entire political process had been corrupted, they honorably changed their vote in favor of saving the Senior Citizens Commission. City staff even changed their position and came out against the “merger”. (I saved all the paperwork on this whole nasty mess, which was grueling, to say the least.)
What was left of the Senior Citizens Commission and the elderly of Davis went into angry overdrive, and a petition drive was started in one weekend. 138 infuriated seniors signed, and that petition was presented by me to the CC in an unforgettable CC meeting in which the Subcommittee on Commissions tried to defend the indefensible. That same night, the City Council unanimously approved to keep the Senior Citizens Commission as is, a stand alone commission to advocate on behalf of the elderly in Davis.
It is interesting to note Don Saylor was one of the CC members who voted to keep the Senior Citizens Commission. Mayor Ruth Asmundson, from the dais, sternly instructed that the issue of merging the Senior Citizens and Social Services Commission never be brought up again. She apologized to the senior community for causing them so much stress and engendering so much anger. Don Saylor on the other hand, expressed admonishment at “the tone of the community”. Sue Greenwald vehemently disagreed, thanking advocates on behalf of seniors for standing by the elderly and their commission.
Fast forward nearly 4 years later. Two subcommittee members are trying to “merge” commissions without even allowing commissions input in such a decision. The subcommittee report itself is very vague as to justifications for such a drastic change – conceding costs savings may not even be an issue bc costs are “difficult to quantify”. It doesn’t even appear City Staff were able to weigh in on the issue either. This entire idea appears to be coming from a subcommittee of two, who got together one day, and arbitrarily decided – “let’s do this because we can.”
It is to their credit that Don Saylor and Rochelle Swanson have taken a step back to think about this. I would strongly encourage them to get input from City Staff, commissioners, and the public. Elimination of commissions in Davis has been an extremely divisive community issue, that has done immense harm in the past. Do we really want to go there again, and to what good purpose? It will only create the perception that the CC is more interested in flexing its muscle than in citizen participation. And there will be a huge loss – in expertise certainly, and possibly grant dollars, jobs and other positive additions to the city…
[i]”Given that many commissions only meet [b]ten times per month[/b], it would seem unlikely that they spend ten hours on each meeting.”[/i]
I think most commissions only meet 10 times [i]per year.[/i]
A couple of other minor thoughts:
1. The HRMC now has Stephen Souza as our city council liaison. It’s refreshing. Stephen is helpful when needed, and because of his presence at our meetings, we know that beyond just the minutes, the council will have an appreciation for what it is the HRMC is doing. Before Stephen was assigned to the HRMC, our liaison was Doe Saylor. Doe never once stayed for an entire meeting. In fact, Doe only showed up one time in the last 6 years–and left after 10 minutes. And then on every single issue which went to the council from the HRMC, he voted exactly the opposite of what we had recommended; and
2. As Elaine points out, the number of joint council-commission meetings has shrunk in recent years. Before I joined the HRMC they were annual. They slipped to bi-annual. And now are closer to once every three years. I don’t think that is a terrible thing. These meetings take a lot of staff time. (The city manager, for example, would attend, as would a lot of his senior staff.) The members of the city council must attend lots and lots of meetings beyond their regular council meetings. So my guess is that the great burden of their regular (almost unpaid) job has just made it too hard to annually meet with the various commissions, save perhaps the planning commission.
A great benefit of these joint council-commission meetings is for the commissioners to present what goals they would like to accomplish, and then get approval or input from the elected city council. If they want to do something the council does not favor, the commission can steer away from that.
Maybe it might make sense in the future to have bi-annual agenda-setting meetings between the council and say four commissions at a time. That way the council will still be able to guide the missions of the commissions, the commissioners would be able to communicate with the council, but the entire process could be done in just two meetings per year (with maybe one more thrown in exclusively for Planning.)
Speaking of commissions which no longer exist … we used to have a Design Review Commission in Davis. It was entirely made up of architects. Its purpose was to try to avoid very ugly public buildings* and to give guidance on remodels and so on. One current HRMC member, Gale Sosnick, was on the DRC. She told me the DRC was a very useful service.
*If we had a quality DRC, we might have avoided that disastruously bland and disconnected USDA building.
Fortunately, we have a lot of good architects in Davis. So most newer public buildings look pretty good. For example, I like the design of the new Yolo Federal Credit Union building, which will be erected at 5th and G. Hibbert’s is a nice design on one corner. And The Roe Building is extremely attractive on its corner. Just a shame about the USDA
Rich Rifkin: “And The Roe Building is extremely attractive on its corner.”
I absolutely hated the Roe Bldg and the ugly blue beach shack next to it, and said so several times on this blog. Then recently I went by, and to my utter amazement the ugly blue beach shack had been painted to match the Roe Bldg, with some added architectural elements of the Roe Bldg so now the whole block looks very integrated and blends well with the other bldgs. HUGE, HUGE IMPROVEMENT. CONGRATS TO WHOEVER DECIDED TO MAKE THE CHANGES.