CITY OF SAN MATEO
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: {{section.name}} Account Number: 10-1511 File ID: {{item.tracking_number}} TO: City Council
FROM: Alex Khojikian, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: March 04, 2024
SUBJECT:
Boards and Commissions Review – Study Session
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an informational update on the City's Boards and Commissions and provide feedback and direction as needed.
BACKGROUND:
City Boards and Commissions (commissions) serve as advisory bodies to facilitate public input and community participation in the determination of public policy. This is achieved by formulating recommended courses of action and policy to the City Council, with whom the final decision rests. Appointed advisory members (commissioners) adhere to the City Council’s policies on the programs under their scopes of interest. They serve to represent the general interests of the entire City and not specific program areas or special interest groups. Commissions are encouraged to express their views on City department programs under their purview. San Mateo has eight commissions: the Community Relations Commission, Library Board, Park and Recreation Commission, Personnel Board, Planning Commission, Senior Citizens Commission, Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, and Measure S Oversight Committee. Attachment 1 provides a detailed description of each commission, including formation year, departments support, and their mission.
While reconfigurations of the City’s commissions have occurred over the last decade, such as the 2018 consolidation of the Public Works Commission with the Sustainability Commission, the last formal review by the City Council of the City’s commissions was conducted on October 15, 2012. In keeping with our organization principle of “seeking constant improvement” staff determined that an updated review of the commission’s roles, responsibilities, and configurations was required to ensure they continue to reflect the current interests and needs of our city. The intent is also to ensure staff resources are being deployed towards the most effective methods to successfully solicit community engagement and input when addressing the diverse needs of our city.
Staff is seeking general feedback on this review of the City’s commissions, and specific direction on the following:
1. Does the Council wish to adjust the frequency of commission reviews? If so, how frequently should the reviews occur?
2. Does the Council wish to adjust the mission, scope, or responsibilities of any commissions?
3. Does the Council wish to increase the number of youth advisory members, if so, which advisory bodies should be included?
Process and Scope of Review:
Most commissions have an adopted ordinance, which establishes their formation within the San Mateo Municipal Code.
However, the Planning Commission and Library Board are established by the City’s Charter; and the Personnel Board was established by a vote of the electorate in conjunction with the adoption of a Merit Employment system in San Mateo.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Since changes to the structure or function of these three commissions would require a vote of the electorate, further direction beyond the scope of this review would be required from Council. Also, the City has additional non-standing advisory bodies, including the Youth Activities Council, Civic Arts Committee, Investment Advisory Committee, which staff manages to bolster programmatic services within the community. These non-standing advisory bodies are not included within the scope of this review, given their distinctly different structure and role when compared to commissions. .
Staff conducted an internal review of the activities of all commissions, including staff liaison analysis, meeting frequency review, a commissioner satisfaction survey, as well as an analysis of types of agenda items being considered. This initial review provides baseline data and general insight into the level of activity of each commission, as outlined below.
Commission meetings may be cancelled for a variety of reasons, including scheduling conflicts, including to accommodate an earlier start time during the same day. Table 1 below provides a list of the number of special meetings conducted by each commission. Special meetings are commonly used to continue the business of the commission at a later date, due to the initial cancellation. Commissions that cancelled meetings or did not consider a large number of “action items” does not necessarily indicate that a particular commission should be restructured or abandoned. The data provides context and serves as an indicator that functions and activities might benefit from further evaluation and exploration.
Table 1: Board, Commission, Committee Meeting Cancellation Frequency Board/Commission/Committee Regular Meeting
Frequency
% of
Meetings
Cancelled
(2023)
% of
Meetings
Cancelled
(2022)
% of
Meeting
Cancelled
(2021)
# of Special
Meetings
(2023-2021)
Community Relations Monthly 83% 83% 75% 4
Library Monthly (Except
December) 18% 18% 27% 0
Park and Recreation Monthly 42% 42% 33% 3
Personnel Monthly 75% 92% 83% 2
Planning Bi-monthly 50% 42% 42% 12
Senior Citizens Every other month 0% 33% 14% 1
Sustainability & Infrastructure Monthly 8% 16% 8% 0
Measure S Oversight Four Times per
Year 50% 75% 25% 4
Table 2: Board, Commission, Committee Action Items (Not Including Minutes, Informational Briefings and Reorganization) Board/Commission/Committee 2023 2022 2021
Community Relations 4 5 2
Library 8 10 10
Park and Recreation 5 8 9
Personnel 3 0 0
Planning 18 22 19
Senior Citizens 3 1 6
Sustainability and Infrastructure 12 7 7
Measure S Oversight 1 2 2
Upon reviewing meeting frequency and content, as outlined in Table 1 and Table 2 below, the business of the Planning Commission, Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, and Library Board appeared to have met frequently in order to consider items consistent with each commission’s intended purpose and function. For this reason, additional study directed towards those advisory bodies was not pursued further.
Staff will also note that the purpose and meeting frequency of the Personnel Board and Measure S Oversight Committee are distinctly unique from their counterpart advisory bodies. Specifically, the Personnel Board’s role is to recommend rules
CITY OF SAN MATEO
and advise the City Manager regarding personnel matters and hear appeals from City employees. As such, the limited number of meetings may not indicate a need for restructuring. Likewise, the Measure S Oversight Committee meets four times within a calendar year to provide fiscal accountability for how Measure S funds are spent. Staff consider the frequency of meetings to be sufficient for this purpose.
Community Relations Commission
The Community Relations Commission (CRC) was established in 1968 to address a broad spectrum of social issues and related policy. The CRC provides oversight and makes recommendations regarding federal grant programs that implement public services, housing, and community development programs. These programs provide a wide variety of social and public services for all residents with a focus on serving the populations most in need in the San Mateo community.
Tables 1 and 2 above indicate a comparatively high number of meeting cancelations for the CRC with the most recent cancellation rate at 83% in 2023, coupled with a comparatively low number of action items considered, specifically 4 action items in 2023. While commission meetings may be cancelled for a variety of reasons, the CRC cancellation trend is of note as it is supplemented by a limited number of action items considered.
Staff is considering the feasibility of extending CRC’s scope to support Housing Element program implementation related to housing preservation and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) topics. Community outreach and engagement is an important component of Housing Element implementation. The CRC could be a good forum for community input and dialogue, and could use that information to inform recommendations provided to Council on how best to meet local housing needs while complying with state requirements related to preservation and AFFH.
At this point, staff is seeking input from the Council regarding the scope of work for the CRC. If directed to explore changes, staff will evaluate further and return to the Council at a later date to provide additional information.
Senior Citizens Commission and Youth Advisory Members
Senior Citizens Commission:
When the Senior Citizens Commission was established in 1986, its primary focus was on reviewing and making recommendations to the Council regarding the creation of a Senior Center (which opened in 1990) and to guide decisions related to its programming. With time, and as the Senior Center and its programs themselves have matured, the number of issues requiring policy recommendations to the City Council has declined. This is not surprising, considering that during the 25 plus years since the Commission was established, issues affecting the senior population have changed.
Senior Citizen Commission meetings are scheduled every other month; however, in practice over the last several years, meetings have been less frequent due to lack of agenda items or lack of a quorum. Meetings are held at 4:00 p.m. to provide a convenient time for commissioners and constituents, and over the years staff has experimented with holding the meetings at various locations (The Senior Center, King Center, Central Center -in conjunction with Self-Help for the Elderly, and at City Hall) to attempt to bolster participation. The meetings which are held have not been well attended, which is unfortunate since the types of items that are brought to the Commission are predominantly informational presentations which would likely be of interest to a wider audience within the senior community. Staff will also note the specific challenges with recruitment for the Senior Citizens Commission, despite active promotion of the vacancy, most recently the Commission served with a vacancy for almost two years. The Senior Citizens Commission has been receiving regular progress reports on the Age Friendly Coalition and has been discussing a proposal to change the name of the commission from Senior Citizens to a more inclusive name.
A commission may not be considered the best forum for representing senior interests of our community to the City organization and City Council, and there are other alternatives which may better serve this purpose. There is an opportunity to restructure in a manner which would allow for improved engagement of the senior population to include a broader cross-segment of stakeholders in response to senior issues. Some options the Council may wish to consider include:
CITY OF SAN MATEO
1. Amending the Municipal Code to include additional scope within the mission and duties of the Senior Citizens Commission.
2. Replacing the Senior Citizens Commission with an ad hoc committee to review and make specific recommendations on policy and strategic planning from a Senior Advisory lens.
3. Designating a Senior Advisory Member, similar to the Youth Commissioner position currently in place with the Park and Recreation Commission.
4. Some combination of the above options.
Youth Advisory Commissioners:
Regarding youth representation on the City’s commissions, in March of 2023, the City Council adopted an ordinance to introduce non-voting youth advisory positions (“Youth Commissioners”) on the Park and Recreation Commission. Youth Commissioners to the Park and Recreation Commission must be between 13 and 17 at the time of appointment and may serve for a one-year term, with an optional additional one year. Staff understands there may be interest from the Council for similar additional Youth Commissioner positions on other advisory bodies. Note that the City Charter presently requires members of boards and commissions to be at least 18 years of age (a separate study session item this evening addresses board and commission eligibility and compensation). At this point, staff wishes to seek direction on:
1. Should additional Youth Commissioner advisory positions be created? a. If yes, which commissions should be included?
2. Should the requirements for serving as a Youth Commissioner be consistent across the commissions? a. If not, which requirements should be changed – the age range, the term, or both? At this time, if a Council majority wishes to increase the number of youth advisory members on the City’s commissions, staff recommends not adding these to the Personnel Board, the Planning Commission, or Measure S Oversight Committee.
This recommendation is based on the comparatively infrequent nature of the Personnel Board and Measure S Oversight Committees. Infrequent meetings may not provide the fulfilling experience for the youth community that we are working to achieve.
Additionally, the Personnel Board’s role to inform personnel matters and appeals can involve confidential and highly sensitive information; in addition, it may be challenging to recruit and retain youth commissioners. The Planning Commission, and to a lesser degree, the Measure S Oversight Committee are considered highly technical, and experience driven. The Planning Commission serves a quasi-judicial function and staff anticipates potential challenges with recruitment and retention for this purpose. However, this policy decision is ultimately at the discretion of the Council.
Board, Commission, and Committee Experience Study
To further facilitate the Council’s review of our advisory bodies and to obtain a better understanding of the current service being provided to our commissioners, staff conducted a Board, Commission, and Committee experience study. Over a three-week period, staff surveyed all commissioners included within the scope of this staff report (42 commissioners), resulting in 21 responses.
Staff sought to get a general sense of how commissioners understood the mission and direction of their commission. Chart 1 below shows that over 80% of survey respondents felt they had a good understanding of their commission’s mission and direction, with 19% indicating a neutral position.
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Chart 1
To help inform the Council on the current workload and scope of our commissions, staff sought commissioners input on this subject. As seen in Chart 2 below, 66.6% of respondents felt the scope, mission, and direction of their Board, Commission, or Committee was realistic and achievable, with 28.5% of respondents indicate a neutral response and 4.7% indicate a negative response.
Chart 2
Staff also sought to review the appointed advisory members’ confidence levels for meeting the mission and direction of
CITY OF SAN MATEO
their Board, Commission or Committee. As Chart 3 shows, 80.8% of respondents felt equipped to perform their roles on their respective advisory bodies, while 9.5% indicate a neutral response and the same percentage of respondents indicate they do not feel adequately equipped.
Chart 3
Staff also sought to get a general understanding of the satisfaction with the experience of appointed advisory members and the level of impact they feel they are having on informing Council policy. As Chart 4 below shows, 71.3% respondents indicated their experience is excellent or good, with 23.8% respondents indicating their experience as “fair” and 4.7% of respondents indicating a “poor” rating.
Chart 4
Lastly, of the 21 respondents, a majority (52.3%) felt their participation helped inform Council decision-making, whereas
CITY OF SAN MATEO
14.2% indicated they do not feel their participation impacts Council decision-making. This result is not unexpected as the level of Council policy recommendations ranges from minimal (Personnel Board) to significant (Planning Commission and Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission).
Next Steps:
Depending on the feedback received, staff will work towards preparing any necessary revisions to the applicable ordinances to carry out the direction provided. Any ordinance changes or formal action to create a new Commission or Committee would be brought forward for consideration and adoption at a regular meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this study session.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This study session is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Board and Commission Information
STAFF CONTACT
Martin McTaggart, Deputy City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7044