HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 09/24/2019 - RE-IMAGINING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONSDATE:
STAFF:
September 24, 2019
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Re-Imagining Boards and Commissions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to clarify the desired goal, outcome, and process in achieving the Council Priority,
“Reimagine Boards and Commissions”:
Better structure the board and commission system to set up success into the future, align with
Outcome Areas and allow for integrated perspectives. Explore models that allow for greater use of
ad hoc meetings, diverse stakeholders and additional community participation.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What are the desired outcomes of this priority?
a. Work more cross-functionally in advisory groups?
b. Align advisory boards to Outcome areas?
c. Create more diversity in Board make-up and structure?
d. Reduce the number of boards and commissions?
2. What questions/suggestions does Council have moving forward?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City has 28 boards and commissions that perform a range of functions from advising to decision making.
Over 200 residents volunteer valuable time and expertise through board membership. Eight of these boards are
considered “quasi-judicial”, meaning they make findings. These include:
• Building Review Board
• Human Relations Commission
• Landmark Preservation Commission
• Planning and Zoning Board
• Retirement Committee
• Water Board
• Zoning Board of Appeals
As early as 2011, City Council prioritized continuous improvement efforts within the board and commission
structure. The attached memos (Attachment 1) from 2012, 2014, and 2017 highlight the conversations and
efforts to date.
In late 2017-early 2018, the City’s Equity Team researched and created a Public Participation Report
(Attachment 2) that included a survey and analysis of existing board members as well as recommendations to
remove barriers and increase more diverse participation among residents.
In 2018, there was a pilot, spearheaded by members of the Economic Advisory Committee, utilizing combined
meetings of the boards and commissions housed under Sustainability. The first pilot meeting summary is attached
September 24, 2019 Page 2
(Attachment 3) and highlights participants appreciation and desire to work cross-functionally and to provide
meaningful input early in a process rather than as a final check before (or after) going to Council.
Out of this work improvements have been made, including:
• The “Super Issue” meeting effort
• Updates to the Board and Commission Manual
• Ability to use MinuteTraq for board and commission processes
• Development and inclusion in Engage the volunteer management system
• The Pilot joint board meetings mentioned above\
• Board and Commission work plan reviews
Re-imaging a structure and process that meets the needs and desires of residents into the 21st century will
require many considerations. Staff is looking to clarify the desired outcomes and better determine what success
looks like.
Possible outcomes include:
1. Work more cross-functionally in advisory groups?
Being able to work and have dialogue in a more diverse structure was and continues to be a desire of board
and commission members and was part of the motivation behind the EAC recommended pilot. Creating
greater diversity of thought can occur in a variety of ways from having broader topic area boards to ensuring
specific stakeholder representation on all boards (youth, women, seniors, mobility-impaired, equity-focused,
etc.)
2. Align advisory boards to Outcome areas?
Aligning boards and commissions to outcome areas is one method of alignment and could mean having 7
outcome focused boards or could be grouping boards under an outcome area and focusing their workplans
to those specific strategic objectives.
3. Create more diversity in Board make-up and structure?
The Public Participation report offers recommendations for lowering barriers to participation and many of
those are already underway. Additional elements that could be considered include having a variety of terms
(1, 2 and 4 year); more defined board member make-up as mentioned under item 1; and use of more ad-hoc
or temporary boards.
4. Reduce the number of boards and commissions?
While this is not a stand-alone goal it could be the result of both alignment, efficiency, and greater cross-
functional structure.
Staff has researched peer and other communities in search of similar efforts elsewhere. While other communities
are having similar conversations, to date, another specific example of a model has not emerged.
Proposed Efforts Moving Forward
Project Alignment: September 24
• Ensure Council agrees with the priority outcomes.
Process and Outreach Plan: September-December 2019
• Develop overall plan and timeline
• Develop specific outreach plan for existing board and commission members
September 24, 2019 Page 3
• Develop public outreach plan
• December 10 work session to align on proposed options and next steps
Develop Process for “New” Model: January-April 2020
• Code changes written and adopted
• Develop transition and implementation plan
ATTACHMENTS
1. Previous memos to Council (PDF)
2. Public Participation Report (PDF)
3. Pilot Memo (PDF)
4. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)
ATTACHMENT 1
November 2017
City of Fort Collins Equity Team – Public Participation Subcommittee
Selina Lujan, Co-Lead
Annie Bierbower, Co-Lead
Edgar Dominguez, Community Liaison
Janet Freeman
Nalo Johnson, Ph.D.
Christine Macrina
Angela Pena
Glen Shirey
Dianne Tjalkens
ATTACHMENT 2
EQUITY TEAM PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT – TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
BACKGROUND 1
METHODOLOGY 2
FINDINGS 2
Municipal Boards and Commissions Best Practices 2
City Boards and Commissions Questionnaire 2
City Boards and Commission Application and Process 7
CONCLUSION 7
APPENDIX 8
Appendix A: Recommendations in Support of Inclusive Public Participation 9
Appendix B: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire – 2017 12
Appendix C: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire Demographic Analysis 15
Appendix D: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire – Synopsis of Qualitative Responses 25
Appendix E: Boards and Commissions National Best Practice List 27
Appendix F: Application for Board and Commission Membership 28
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2016, the City’s internal Equity Team established the Public Participation subcommittee to focus on
improving representation among the City’s public engagement opportunities. The committee’s 2017
workplan targeted public engagement strategies for Boards and Commissions, Budgeting for Outcomes
(BFO) teams, and the CityWorks program. After examining the Boards and Commissions process –
including a questionnaire for current Boards and Commissions members and conducting an
environmental scan of municipal best practices – the team identified major findings, including:
• Current Boards and Commissions members do not represent the breadth of our community in
relation to race/ethnicity, age and income status.
• Candidates experience a lack of clarity regarding what to expect in the application, interview
and appointment process.
• Barriers to participation include meeting schedule expectations, such as conflicts with work day
schedules.
To proactively address these findings, the Public Participation subcommittee developed
recommendations that include:
• Conduct targeted outreach to populations currently underrepresented on Boards and
Commissions.
• Broaden the applicant pool by providing information to applicants that clearly defines the
expectations and timeline of the application, interview and appointment process.
• Identify alternative methods for participation such as the ability for members to remote into
meetings.
The following report provides specific details as to the subcommittee’s findings with a full list of
recommendations contained on p. 9-11.
While the Public Participation subcommittee focused its efforts on the Boards and Commissions
process, the findings are relevant across public engagement activities, including BFO teams and
CityWorks participation. The subcommittee is grateful for the participation and candidness of the
Boards and Commissions members which created a better understanding of the current state of
participation. We look forward to being a resource for the organization as it considers the
recommendations.
BACKGROUND
The Public Participation subcommittee of the City’s internal Equity Team was established to evaluate
and form recommendations regarding inclusive public involvement practices. The committee’s 2017
workplan specifically identified a focus on Boards and Commissions, BFO teams and the CityWorks
program. The team sought to identify and recommend process improvements to ensure diversity and
inclusive practices within these three significant public engagement opportunities. A more accurate
representation of the community ensures a breadth of experiences and perspectives are used to inform
the City. By implementing the recommendations, the City can increase community members’
accessibility to the organization and remove barriers to participation, and as a result, uphold the City’s
values as it strives to provide exceptional service for an exceptional community.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 2
METHODOLOGY
After gaining approval from the Equity Team Steering Committee, the subcommittee developed and
administered a demographic questionnaire to determine baseline demographics among Boards and
Commissions members, and thus identify areas of opportunity for representation. Additionally, the
subcommittee held interviews and reviewed processes with 12 municipalities that are considered
leaders in equity and inclusion practices, as well as our neighboring regional communities. (See
Appendix E for the list of best practice cities.) The subcommittee also reviewed the current Boards and
Commissions application and process.
FINDINGS
Municipal Boards and Commissions Best Practices
The following best practices were identified in structuring inclusive Boards and Commissions:
• Provide training and onboarding for staff liaisons as well as applicants (demystifies the process
and ensures staff is attuned to challenges and opportunities for inclusive recruitment)
• Clearly recognize the Boards’ and Commissions’ work to develop and maintain community
relationships (helps promote relevance of participation)
• Offer stipends or other incentives to help alleviate needs among demographics that may not
otherwise be able to participate
• Collaborate with community groups for targeted outreach/recruitment to catalyze participation
• Customize the application process and outreach to align with a Board’s area of focus
• Hold interviews with all available Councilmembers to ensure breadth of input
• Record interviews so that all Councilmembers and/or other staff can review/provide input
• Departments and/or staff liaisons are expected to provide feedback on candidates as to
strengths, weaknesses and potential
• Announce a set interview date at the beginning of the recruitment process so applicants can
plan accordingly
• Offer candidates the option to interview with Council by phone or Skype
• Use a standardized set of questions, generated by Council with input by staff, in the interview
process
• Offer Boards and Commissions specific feedback from Council regarding the
assistance/recommendations they provided to Council
• Assign multiple staff to support the Boards and Commissions process
City Boards and Commissions Questionnaire
The committee conducted a voluntary questionnaire with all current Boards and Commissions members
in May 2017 to determine current demographic representation as well as gather members’ perspectives
as to potential barriers to participation and the ways in which the City may enhance its engagement
efforts to broaden the pool of applicants. (See Appendix B for a copy of the questionnaire.) Of the 208
current members, 126 responses were collected for a 61% response rate. The committee compared
questionnaire responses with community demographics (using 2015 American Community Survey
Census data) to identify gaps in representation. A full description of this comparison may be found in
Appendix C; however, the following highlights comparative findings on gender, race/ethnicity, income,
and age.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 3
Fort Collins is virtually evenly split with a male population of 50.03% and a female population of
49.97%. The gender distribution of Boards and Commissions members by Council District is as
follows:
District FC Female
%
B&C
Female %
Delta FC Male % B&C
Male %
Delta
1 49.71% 44.44% - 5.27% 50.29% 55.6% + 5.31%
2 51.59% 50.00% - 1.59% 48.41% 50.0% + 1.59%
3 51.24% 38.46% - 12.78% 48.76% 61.5% + 12.74%
4 51.04% 64.71% + 13.67% 48.96% 35.3% - 13.66%
5 48.36% 61.54% + 13.18% 51.64% 38.5% - 13.14%
6 47.64% 53.57% + 5.93% 52.36% 46.4% - 5.96%
Citywide 49.97% 53.13% + 3.16% 50.03% 46.88% - 3.15%
While nearly 18% of Fort Collins residents identify as a person of color (i.e., non-White and/or
Hispanic/Latinx), Boards and Commission members overwhelmingly identify as White and/or non-
Hispanic/Latinx. Of the survey respondents, only eight (8) members identified as a person of color [two
(2) Asian, two (2) Two or more races, and four (4) Hispanic/Latinx].1 All eight of those members were
also female. The racial/ethnic comparison is as follows:
Percent Number
City B&C City B&C
White 82.71% 94.35% 134736 116
Hispanic 10.25% 3.23% 16703 4
Asian 2.86% 1.61% 4666 2
2+ 2.34% 0.81% 3804 2
Other2 1.84% 0.00% 2990 0
As shown in the following table, there is no striking disparity between any of the target populations
across districts, rather, the lack of representation among residents of color is a Citywide challenge of
equal proportion in any district.
Column1 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6
White 82.00% 83.46% 82.84% 85.00% 82.46% 80.56%
Hispanic 12.47% 9.79% 9.57% 8.47% 8.97% 12.08%
Asian 1.75% 3.15% 4.04% 2.43% 3.44% 2.45%
2+ Races 2.02% 1.96% 2.29% 2.38% 2.85% 2.55%
Black 1.08% 1.06% 0.85% 1.17% 1.67% 1.53%
Other Race 0.12% 0.15% 0.14% 0.10% 0.11% 0.21%
Pacific Islander 0.05% 0.06% 0.01% 0.05% 0.13% 0.10%
1 Please note that racial identities are not synonymous with ethnic identities. Thus, for example, one can be racially White as
well as identify as ethnically Hispanic/Latinx.
2 “Other” encompasses additional racial categories that were not selected within the survey results.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 4
The table and charts below show that household incomes below $50,000 are underrepresented among
Boards and Commissions members while incomes $75,000 and higher are overrepresented with a
sharp spike at the $100,000-$149,000 range.
City B&C
Less than $10,000 13.68% 1.94%
$15,000-$24,999 9.05% 1.94%
$25,000-$34,999 10.62% 5.83%
$35,000-$49,999 12.12% 4.85%
$50,000-$74,999 16.02% 16.50%
$75,000-$99,999 13.78% 16.50%
$100,000-$149,999 15.36% 34.95%
$150,000-$199,999 4.94% 8.74%
$200,000 or more 4.43% 8.74%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
Income Distribution City and B&C
City B&C
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
Income Distribution by District
Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3
Council District 4 Council District 5 Council District 6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 5
In terms of age, younger age bands are underrepresented while older age bands are overrepresented.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 City
Age Distribution City and District
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 6
Members identified the following as barriers to participation and/or gaps in current representation on
Boards and Commissions (see Appendix A):
• Meeting times that conflict with the work day
• Limitations around night meetings and early morning meetings
• Candidate interview times limited to work day
• Lack of information on board-specific topics
• Lack of transparency in the recruitment process
• Lengthy application process with little direction as to what to expect
• Need for more diversity across multiple identities (racial/ethnic, socioeconomic status, etc.)
• Need for younger members (76% of respondents were 40+ yrs.)
• Inconsistency among board incentives (i.e., not all boards serve food during meetings held
around traditional mealtimes)
• Consider ways in which board membership may be exclusive (i.e., for DDA you must live or own
a business in the DDA boundary, which might make it hard for people of varying income levels
to participate)
• Lack of communication between Council and Boards and Commissions as to how members’
input is used and/or if it is effective
Members recommended the following as ways in which the City could enhance its outreach and
engagement efforts for Boards and Commissions participation:
• Advertise vacancies in multiple ways such as:
o Major employers
o Chamber of Commerce
o Social Media
o Church bulletins
o Larimer County Workforce Center
o Affordable housing residences
• Allow members to participate virtually to mitigate barriers around employment, childcare, etc.
• Provide childcare as needed
• Determine gaps in representation and conduct targeted recruitment to fill those gaps
o Focus on underrepresented communities (Hispanic, low-income, younger people with
families)
• Hold more informational community events; hold recruitment fairs/open houses, host tables at
public events and other opportunities such as the recreation centers; advertise among volunteer
opportunities such as Make a Difference Day
• Use current/previous board members as “ambassadors” to help in the recruitment strategies;
consider mentor opportunities between older and newer members
• Communicate the story of what Boards and Commissions have helped the City to achieve;
provide templates/opportunities for members to “report out” to the community through media,
social media, or presentations
• Ensure process and requirements for serving are readily available to the public
o Process and requirements should be easily understood and accessible
o Length of time between application submission and candidate selection should be
shorter
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 7
City Boards and Commission Application and Process
Through a review of the Boards and Commissions application and process, the following items were
highlighted for recommendations:
Application
• Candidates’ entire applications are made publicly accessible in the AIS; this led to a discussion
around safety concerns. Immediate action was taken to redact personally identifiable
information from the AIS and create a subsequent recommendation to address these safety
concerns.
Applicant interview process
• Interviews are required to be in-person and scheduled at the Councilmembers’ convenience
• Candidates only interview with the Council liaison to their potential board
• There is no specific set of questions for Councilmembers to use in a candidate interview
• There is no set process laid out for informing applicants about what to expect
Applicant background check
• Currently any City staff and/or volunteer, excluding Council, in a “position of trust” must undergo
a background check
CONCLUSION
While the Public Participation subcommittee focused its efforts on the Boards and Commissions
process, we believe the findings to be relevant across public engagement activities, including BFO
teams and CityWorks participation. We are grateful for the participation and candor of the Boards and
Commissions members to help us better understand the current state of participation and look forward
to being a resource for the organization as it considers these recommendations.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 8
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Recommendations in Support of Inclusive Public Participation 9
Appendix B: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire – 2017 12
Appendix C: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire Demographic Analysis 15
Appendix D: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire – Synopsis of Qualitative Responses 25
Appendix E: Boards and Commissions National Best Practice List 27
Appendix F: Application for Board and Commission Membership 28
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 9
Appendix A: Recommendations in Support of Inclusive Public Participation
Level of Priority: High Medium Low
Process
Recommendation
Rationale3
Next Steps
Resources
Required
Recommended
Implementation
Recruitment
1.1: Conduct an annual
demographic questionnaire
of existing Board and
Commission members
Ensure our Boards and
Commissions
membership reflects the
diversity of our community
and the City’s goals
related to equity and
inclusion.
Refine
questionnaire
before next
recruitment
period; expect
all members to
complete
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office and
Public
Participation
Team
In progress
(see
Appendix A)
Recruitment
1.2: Review and update
recruitment process,
including messaging,
materials and targeted
outreach
Improve diversity of
applicants for Board and
Commission openings by
conducting targeted,
culturally responsive
outreach, as identified in
the Boards and
Commissions
questionnaire.
Develop
communication
plan and
materials
Time and
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 10
Application
2.3: Replace member
applications in AIS with
relevancy biographies.
While Councilmembers
will receive the entire
application to review, the
relevancy biography
provides the public
information as to the
candidate’s qualifications
while protecting the safety
of the candidate by
limiting the release of
their personally
identifiable information.
Execute if
approved
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office
Fall 2017 for
January
2018
appointments
Interview
3.1: Develop list of
standardized interview
questions.
Ensures transparency
and reduces risk to
Council by ensuring all
applicants are asked the
same questions.
Develop
interview
questions
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office, staff
liaisons and
Public
Participation
Team
Fall 2019 for
January
2020
appointments
Interview
3.2: Include staff liaison in
applicant interviews.
As a subject matter expert
and main contact for
support throughout Board
members’ tenure, the staff
liaison may provide an
additional point of view for
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 11
Ongoing Participation
4.2: Provide an annual
training for staff
liaisons.
Raise level of awareness
regarding existing
barriers to participation
and provide support to
staff regarding City’s use
of an equity lens in its
work.
Consider including
training related to the
assessment of a prior
conviction record – what
is the relevancy and/or
concern of the conviction.
Training
development
and
implementation
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office and
Public
Participation
Team
In progress
Ongoing Participation
4.3: Council liaison
provides more in-
depth feedback and
comments on input
received from the
Board or Commission.
The Boards and
Commissions
questionnaire found that
members strongly
believed they would
benefit from greater
feedback from Council as
to the usefulness of their
input and how it is used.
Identify input
process and
structure
Time and
capacity of
staff liaisons
2018
Ongoing Participation
4.4: Provide
alternative methods for
participation, such as
the ability to remote
into meetings while
retaining voting status,
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 12
Appendix B: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire – 2017
Background:
The City is surveying its Board and Commission members to better understand demographics of
current participants and to identify areas in which the City can increase community participation. We
also seek input about your interests and experiences serving on a Board or Commission, as well as
recommendations to make the Boards and Commissions more representative of the community.
Survey Process:
Your answers are confidential and we appreciate your participation in helping the City strengthen its
inclusive practices. An analysis of survey findings will inform recommendations to City Leadership and
Council.
If you have any questions about the questionnaire, please feel free to contact: Christine Macrina
at cmacrina@fcgov.com or 970-416-2525
Many thanks for your participation!
Please select the categories with which you identify: (we have mirrored U.S. Census categories where
possible)
Gender:
o Female
o Male
o Other, please self-identify _______________________
o Decline to specify
Race:
o American Indian/Alaska Native
o Asian
o Black/African American
o Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
o White
o Two or more races
o Decline to specify
Ethnicity:
o Hispanic/Latino
o Non-Hispanic/Latino
o Decline to specify
Age Range:
o 15-19 yrs
o 20-29 yrs
o 30-39 yrs
o 40-49 yrs
o 50-59 yrs
o 60-69 yrs
o 70 yrs or older
o Decline to specify
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 13
Household Income Range:
o Less than $10,000
o $10,000-$14,999
o $15,000-$24,999
o $25,000-$34,999
o $35,000-$49,999
o $50,000-$74,999
o $75,000-$99,999
o $100,000-$149,999
o $150,000-$199,999
o $200,000 or more
o Decline to specify
Geographic Location:
o Council District: (select 1-6)
o Decline to specify
o Length of residence in Fort Collins:
o 1-5 years
o 6- 10 years
o 11- 15 years
o 16-20 years
o More than 20 years
o Decline to specify
Do you own or rent your residence?
o Own
o Rent
o Other (please specify)
o Decline to specify
Educational Attainment:
o Less than high school graduate
o High school graduate (or equivalency)
o Some college or associate’s degree
o Bachelor’s degree or higher
o Decline to specify
Name Board/Commission on which you serve: (Dropdown menu)
Following are open/essay format:
How did you learn about the City Boards and Commissions?
Why did you want to serve on a Board or Commission?
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 14
Challenges I experience in my participation on a Board or Commission include (select all that apply):
o Transportation
o Childcare
o Meeting time
o Work schedule limitations
o Caring for a person(s) experiencing disabilities
o Caring for an elderly person(s)
o Other (please specify):____________________
o I do not experience any challenges to my Board or Commission participation.
What do you see, if any, are the benefits to serving on a board or commission (select all that apply)?
o Impact community direction
o Share my knowledge base
o Build an understanding of different perspectives
o Build an understanding of local government
o Meet new people
o Other – please describe (fill in the blank)
o I do not experience any benefits
What suggestions do you have to broaden recruitment efforts for Boards and Commissions?
Any other relevant information you would like to share?
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 15
Appendix C: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire Demographic Analysis
This paper represents the comparison of Boards and Commissions participation according to the
following demographic parameters:
• Gender
• Ethnicity
• Income
• Age
The Boards and Commissions data (B&C) was compiled from recent voluntary survey responses; not
all members responded and of those who did had the option to decline. The City and District data
(City) was compiled by ESRI (GIS) from the US Census’ 2015 ACS data (American Community
Survey), the latest available.
The reader should be aware that this is objective data presented without bias, prejudice, or judgment.
Outlier data points simply indicate a demographic parameter that lies outside of the norm; they do not
subjectively indicate intent. These are simply tools to help us focus where we may be vulnerable to
demographic parameters skewing outcomes.
Gender
The City is virtually evenly split with a male population of 50.03% and a female population of 49.97%.
The following factors may serve to skew the data, but are assumed to be statistically insignificant
especially since we are considering ratios (percentage) and not raw number comparisons:
• The City data started at 21 or older while the B&C data started at 20 or older
• The City data included ages 85 and older while the B&C data specified 70 or older. Logically,
there is an age whereupon B&C participation becomes problematic and you may well not expect
participation on a B&C from that age group.
Remembering that the City is virtually 50/50 female/male, the gender distribution by district by City and
B&C is represented below by table and charts:
District City
Female %
B&C
Female %
Delta City Male
%
B&C Male
%
Delta
1 49.71% 44.44% - 5.27% 50.29% 55.6% + 5.31%
2 51.59% 50.00% - 1.59% 48.41% 50.0% + 1.59%
3 51.24% 38.46% - 12.78% 48.76% 61.5% + 12.74%
4 51.04% 64.71% + 13.67% 48.96% 35.3% - 13.66%
5 48.36% 61.54% + 13.18% 51.64% 38.5% - 13.14%
6 47.64% 53.57% + 5.93% 52.36% 46.4% - 5.96%
Citywide 49.97% 53.13% + 3.16% 50.03% 46.88% - 3.15%
Where the gray lines extend to the right in the charts below the gender is over-represented on Boards
and Commissions; where the gray lines fall to the left, that gender is likewise under-represented.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 16
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 17
Ethnicity
Ethnicity distribution data is distributed below comparing the City to B&C composition, the response to
the voluntary B&C surveys was so overwhelmingly “White” that a valid breakout by District was not
possible.
The data is presented in percent and raw number forms. Percentages show trending, but we must also
look at the raw numbers due to the small number of members of color as a percent in the City or on a
Board or Commission.
The following two charts show the racial/ethnic representation on Boards and Commissions as
compared to the racial/ethnic makeup of the City. The line chart shows the general trend of
overrepresented White and underrepresented people of color on Boards and Commissions.
The bar chart adds detail that is not visible in the line chart and we can see the disparity more clearly.
As shown, those identifying as White are overrepresented on Boards and Commissions. The disparity
between the White overrepresentation and Hispanic underrepresentation is clear from the graphs.
However, the disparity for other race/ethnic groups is not apparent because we are dealing with such
small numbers as a percentage.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
White Hispanic Asian 2+ Other*
Race/Ethnicity Distribution in City and B&C
City B&C
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
White Hispanic Asian 2+ Other*
Race/Ethnicity Distribution in City and B&C
City B&C
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 18
While it can be difficult to obtain representation on Boards and Commissions when drawing from
significantly smaller populations, targeting the barriers to participation strengthens the City’s
commitment to broad community engagement. Percentage and number population breakdowns by
race/ethnicity are as follows:
Percent Number
City B&C City B&C
White 82.71% 94.35% 134736 116
Hispanic 10.25% 3.23% 16703 4
Asian 2.86% 1.61% 4666 2
2+ 2.34% 0.81% 3804 2
Other4 1.84% 0.00% 2990 0
With the Census data shown in the table and chart below, we see there is no striking disparity between
any of the target populations across districts, rather, the lack of representation among residents of color
is a Citywide problem of equal proportion in any district.
Column1 District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6
White 82.00% 83.46% 82.84% 85.00% 82.46% 80.56%
Hispanic 12.47% 9.79% 9.57% 8.47% 8.97% 12.08%
Asian 1.75% 3.15% 4.04% 2.43% 3.44% 2.45%
2+ Races 2.02% 1.96% 2.29% 2.38% 2.85% 2.55%
Black 1.08% 1.06% 0.85% 1.17% 1.67% 1.53%
Other Race 0.12% 0.15% 0.14% 0.10% 0.11% 0.21%
Pacific Islander 0.05% 0.06% 0.01% 0.05% 0.13% 0.10%
4 “Other” encompasses additional racial categories that were not selected within the survey results.
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
White Hispanic Asian 2+ Races Black Other Race Pacific
Race/Ethnicity Distribution across Districts
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 19
Income
The raw numbers and trending for income distribution is shown below for the City and Boards and
Commissions. Please Note: The ESRI ACS data only went as low as less than $15,000 whereas the
B&C surveys specified less than $10,000, thus there is an apparent hole between $10,000 and $15,000
in the survey response.
As we can see from the table and charts below, incomes below $50,000 are underrepresented and
incomes $75,000 and higher are overrepresented with an unexpectedly sharp spike at $100,000-
$149,999. Statistically, this spike represents a vulnerability as an indicator to consider whether B&C
outcomes are vulnerable to being skewed towards the interests of higher middle-income level
households.
City B&C
Less than $10,000 13.68% 1.94%
$15,000-$24,999 9.05% 1.94%
$25,000-$34,999 10.62% 5.83%
$35,000-$49,999 12.12% 4.85%
$50,000-$74,999 16.02% 16.50%
$75,000-$99,999 13.78% 16.50%
$100,000-$149,999 15.36% 34.95%
$150,000-$199,999 4.94% 8.74%
$200,000 or more 4.43% 8.74%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Income Distribution City and B&C
City B&C
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 20
The following series of charts compares income levels on Boards and Commission to the income levels
within the related district. Each district shows some form of skew toward higher income levels. District
2 is the most uniform and District 3 is more erratic, but is also the smallest population.
Districts 1, 4, 5, and 6 all show a skew at the $100,000 income level. What is significant is that District
1, and particularly Districts 2 and 3, have the lowest distribution of higher income brackets in their
districts, yet still have a significant skew at $100,000.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Income Distribution by District
Council District 1 Council District 2 Council District 3
Council District 4 Council District 5 Council District 6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 21
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
District 1 Income Distribution
B&C Population 22
ACS-1 B&C-1
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
District 2 Income Distribution
B&C Population 22
ACS-2 B&C-2
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
District 3 Income Distribution
B&C Population 10
ACS-3 B&C-3
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
District 4 IncomeDistribution B&C
Population 13
ACS-4 B&C-4
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
District 5 Income Distribution
B&C Population 11
ACS-5 B&C-5
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
District 6 Income Distribution
B&C Population 25
ACS-6 B&C-6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 22
Age
Raw numbers and distribution of age throughout the City and Boards and Commissions are shown
below. The populations in the City and on Boards and Commissions are only nearly congruent in the
50s age range. Other than that, the younger age bands are clearly underrepresented and the older age
bands are overrepresented.
B&C City
20 - 29 6.35% 32.42%
30 - 39 16.67% 18.40%
40 - 49 21.43% 14.01%
50 - 59 18.25% 14.81%
60 - 69 23.02% 11.20%
70+ 14.29% 9.16%
This phenomenon can be rationalized by taking the college population into account and realizing that
older, particularly retired community members, have more discretionary time. Indeed Districts 5 and 6,
which mostly cover the CSU campus and surrounding neighborhoods, have a distinctly large 20-year-
old population skewing the City average, and thus creating questions as to how to represent that
population.
Overall, however, there is a decided propensity on Boards and Commissions to have
overrepresentation by the older age groups.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 23
The following charts show the age distribution per Council District and on their corresponding Boards
and Commissions. While there is no obvious common skew pattern, there is a common skew toward
the higher age bands and particularly away from the lower one in all Districts.
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 City
Age Distribution City and District
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 24
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Council District 1 and B&C Age Distribution
Population 27
District 1 B&C
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Council District 2 and B&C Age Distribution
Population 24
District 2 B&C
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Council District 3 and B&C Age Distribution
Population 12
District 3 B&C
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Council District 4 and B&C Age Distribution
Population 16
District 4 B&C
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Council District 5 and B&C Age Distribution
Population 13
District 5 B&C
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 25
Appendix D: Boards and Commissions Questionnaire – Synopsis of Qualitative Responses
What suggestions do you have to broaden recruitment efforts for Boards and Commissions?
• Hold more community informational events, recruitment fair/open house, tables at public events,
rec centers, volunteer days like Make a Difference Day
• Message the story of what Boards and Commissions have helped the City achieve (newspaper
articles)
o Provide templates/opportunities for members to “report out” to the community through
social media or presentations
• Ensure process and requirements for serving are readily available to the public
o Process/requirements should be easily understood and accessible
o Process should be shorter (application, interview, etc.)
• Use a marketing campaign:
o Target one’s desire to participate in community decisions
o Use current members to speak/recruit/give presentations at other community events
o Place stories in the newspaper of Boards and Commissions accomplishments/impact
o Advertise vacancies in:
Major employers (FRCC, CSU, HP, Woodward, UC Health, breweries)
CSU campus
Chamber of Commerce
Through social media (i.e., NextDoor)
Church bulletins
Larimer County Workforce Center
Affordable housing residences
At Council meetings
CityWorks 101 and Larimer County 101
• Revise interview process to:
o Ensure members’ capacity to serve
“As a whole I don’t think the board I serve on has a very strong understanding of
the subject matter at hand. Therefore the conversations are not particularly high
level and the board is very rarely consequential in City policy. I'd love to see a
combination of reorganization of the seat allocation, and a commitment to
ongoing education on important concepts, and a directive to staff, as the board
matures, that we have more impact on plans earlier, and not just work as a
rubber stamp for existing plans.”
o Accommodate for evening interview times (i.e., only daytime interview slots were given
and a candidate’s schedule did not permit them to attend, yet no accommodation was
made for an evening interview slot)
• Shift meeting times to accommodate working professionals’ schedules
• Consider options for people to attend meetings from home
• Provide childcare (prefer childcare over food/snacks/thank-you gifts)
• Offer food during meeting periods
• Use current/previous board members as “ambassadors” to help in the recruitment strategies
• Identify where there are recruitment issues and recruit specifically to fill those gaps
o Focus on diverse communities (Hispanic, Low Income, etc.)
o Recruit younger community members and those with families
o “Be aware that in some situations, a deep knowledge of the history of the city and
expertise in the issue at hand is more important than getting representation from every
diverse group.”
o Age range of board members should match demographics of the community
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 26
o Councilmembers, staff and current board members should actively recruit
underrepresented populations
o Seek more working corporate executives
• Ensure staff is responsive to board/community input
• Give boards actual voting rights – make them feel that they are actually impacting the
community
• Ensure no conflicts of interest between members and the board they serve on
• Provide better training for board chairs on how to facilitate meetings and ensure all can speak
Any other relevant information you would like to share?
• Use social media to increase knowledge and interest on Boards and Commissions; share stories of what
they have helped the City achieve
• Use staff/current board members to assist in recruitment strategies
• Ensure proper training/vetting for participation
o “It is frustrating as a marginalized individual to serve in a Commission [where] white [people]
hinder us. The lack of knowledge on the dynamics of [privilege] is flabbergasting and infuriating.
Their intentions are good but we need a Commission whose knowledge match[es] their passion
and intentions.”
• Enjoy opportunity to serve on a board
• Review term limits
o Some people have had very long terms on a board and feel like they own the issues and
can stifle the input from newer members
o Need succession planning and planning for turnover during the year so that the rest of
the members are not overloaded
• City staff work hard and respect community members; use board members’ expertise to do
things like background research
o “Assign us more responsibility to truly make change in our community.”
o “Boards and commissions should not be primarily in the passive role of reviewing staff
actions. The City has competent staff. What is needed from the community is to provide
topical guidance to the Council. Boards and Commissions should have input on strategy
and vision aspects of their topics and be part of the process of Council setting the long-
term goals and objectives for the City.”
• Consider ways in which board membership may be exclusive
• Consider mentor opportunities between older and newer members
• City buildings need to be aware of handicapped parking issues
• Important to recruit younger people to the boards
• Non-liaison staff need to take board feedback seriously
o “Don’t just check the box that you presented to the board.”
• Microsoft Sharepoint is not a useful system to make materials available
• Ensure Council input as to the impact of board feedback/recommendations/contributions
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 27
Appendix E: Boards and Commissions National Best Practice List
The Public Participation Subcommittee researched communities across the country to gather
information about municipal Boards and Commissions processes. Communities that are known as
leaders in equity, inclusion and community engagement were chosen, as well as regional neighbors.
The following communities were reviewed and/or interviewed. The URL link directs to their main Boards
and Commissions page.
Austin, TX: http://www.austintexas.gov/department/boards-and-commissions
Burlington, VT: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CityCouncil/Boards-Commissions-Committees
Eugene, OR: https://www.eugene-or.gov/86/Boards-and-Commissions
King County, WA: http://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/executive/boards.aspx
Minneapolis, MN: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/boards/index.htm
Portland, OR: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/oni/37423
St. Paul, MN: https://www.stpaul.gov/departments/mayors-office/committees-boards-and-commissions
Seattle, WA: https://www.seattle.gov/boards-and-commissions
Boulder, CO: https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commissions
Denver, CO: https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/mayors-office/about-the-office-of-the-
mayor/boards-commissions.html
Greeley, CO: http://greeleygov.com/government/b-c/home
Longmont, CO: https://www.longmontcolorado.gov/departments/boards-committees-and-commissions
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 28
Appendix F: Application for Board and Commission Membership
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT 29
Sustainability Services
222 LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 - fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18, 2019
TO: Mayor Wade Troxell & City Councilmembers
THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager
Jeff Mihelich, Deputy City Manager
Jacqueline Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
FROM: Victoria Shaw, Senior Finance Analyst, SSA
RE: Joint Board & Commission Pilot Meeting
________________________________________________________________________
Bottom-line:
Per a resolution adopted by Council in July 2018, a pilot meeting including
representation from all Boards and Commissions supported by Sustainability Services
staff liaisons was held April 11
th
. The meeting focused on the Triple Bottom Line Scan
(TBL-S) and Accessory Dwelling Units. Feedback to date has been positive, and a
second pilot meeting will be held before the end of the year.
Background:
In May 2018, Futures Committee discussed the future of community advisory
engagement. Two members of the Economic Advisory Commission recommended an
experiment involving representation from mixed boards. In July 2018, a Resolution was
unanimously adopted by Council to allow for two pilot meetings. The Resolution outlined
that all six Boards and Commissions supported by Sustainability Services would be
included, and allowed the flexibility to expand to invite additional Boards and
Commissions as needed. The two pilot meetings were intended to develop and test the
process and effectiveness of this engagement model. The Resolution outlines that staff
will determine topics, which Boards participate, and when the joint meetings occur.
Early Learnings:
Staff met with board liaisons and representatives multiple times during the planning
process for the first pilot meeting. Initially, the proposed topics for the joint meetings
were identified collaboratively. This yielded good indicators of where various Boards
and Commissions might share interest; however, it generally identified the topics too
late to be successful scheduling and convening the large group before the next decision
point. Representatives provided feedback that they felt a limited timeline would reduce
the effectiveness and impact the collective group could have. To mitigate this issue,
DocuSign Envelope ID: E083B888-E383-4AE8-985F-BEAAD5149659
ATTACHMENT 3
2
staff pivoted the focus for the first pilot meeting to an internal City process that did not
have upcoming Council milestones.
Process:
The TBL-S was selected as a topic because all invited Boards and Commissions will
review results of TBL-S assessments. This topic was coupled with City Plan Housing
options, specifically Accessory Dwelling Units, to demonstrate and test how the internal
TBL-S process is performed. Staff presented overviews and supported participant
dialogues. Participants were mixed at small tables and each table completed a separate
TBL-S with the assistance of a table facilitator. The results of all scans were presented
and discussed by participants.
Feedback:
17 board and committee representatives attended. Feedback within the meeting was
positive for the meeting structure. Specifically, participants expressed that they enjoyed
having a mix of Boards and Commissions that were connected to the topic, with the
opportunity for them to ask the same questions. There was also expressed desire to tie
knowledge from the meeting to an outcome, such as joint statement. Participants stated
they felt the model of engagement was different and significantly more active compared
to a Board and Commission Super Issues Board meeting, which also addresses
multiple Boards and Commissions collectively.
Feedback was also collected on impressions of the TBL-S and Accessory Dwelling
Units. This feedback was provided to the relevant core teams.
A follow up survey was also sent to all invited participants. Highlights from survey
results for attendees include
100% of participants were satisfied or very satisfied with the meeting
100% would recommend attending a joint Board and Commission meeting to peers
100% would attend a future joint Board & Commission meeting
Among members that were invited, but did not attend the pilot meeting:
80% were unable to attend due to schedule or conflicts
30% indicated they would be more willing to attend if there were clearer outcomes
Next steps:
1. Ongoing - Participating Boards & Commissions will debrief individually in their
regular meetings and complete an online survey on their experience.
2. Q2 2019 - Staff will regroup with the data from board discussions and participant
surveys responses. This information will help inform direction for the second and
final approved pilot meeting.
3. Q3 2019 - The planning process for the second pilot meeting will begin, including
staff liaisons and representatives from participating Boards and Commissions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E083B888-E383-4AE8-985F-BEAAD5149659
3
4. Q4 2019 – Current targeted timeline for the next joint board and commission pilot
meeting.
5. End 2019 – Results from pilot will be complete and communicated to Council.
DocuSign Envelope ID: E083B888-E383-4AE8-985F-BEAAD5149659
City Council Work Session September 24, 2019
Re-Imagining Boards & Commissions
Ginny Sawyer
ATTACHMENT 4
Direction
1. What are the desired outcomes of this priority?
a. Work more cross functionally in advisory groups?
b. Align advisory boards to Outcome areas?
c. Create more diversity in Board make-up and structure?
d. Reduce the number of Boards and Commissions?
2. What questions/suggestions does Council have moving forward?
2
2019 Adopted Council Priority
Re-imagine Boards and Commissions:
Better structure the board and commission system to set up success
into the future, align with Outcome Areas and allow for integrated
perspectives. Explore models that allow for greater use of Ad Hoc
meetings, diverse stakeholders and additional community participation.
3
2018 Futures Committee
4
TODAY 10 YEARS 20 YEARS 30 YEARS 40 YEARS 50 YEARS
• Continuous
improvement efforts
• Structural and
process
improvement
• Envision roadmap to
future structure
Create and implement
roadmap to future
vision
What does an effective
community advisory
structure and process
look like in 30-50 years
Today
28 standing Boards/Commissions
7 quasi-judicial
225 total volunteers
27 staff liaisons, 11 admin support
Boards governed by Article 3, Chapter 2 of
the Municipal Code
15 vacancies, 50 expiring terms end of 2019
5
Today
Boards and Commissions advise the Council on various issues and
perform functions as the Council may designate.
Established and known mechanism to engage residents in areas of
interest.
Part of a broader public engagement/volunteer system.
6
Historical
Majority of Boards and Commissions established in between the
1950s and 1980s
Three created in the 2000s
Increased use of ad hoc committees: Community Trust, Broadband,
Impact Fees, Development Review, Affordable Housing Homeless
Service Center
7
Continuous Improvement Efforts
Council 2011-2012 Work Plan – Priority project:
• Convene a representative group of B & C members to assess and suggest improvements
Council Future’s Committee- January 2014
• Project Plan for the B&C Function and Structure Review
Equity Team Public Participation Report- 2017
• Demographic questionnaire to determine baseline demographics and identify areas of
opportunity. Reviewed current Boards and Commissions application and process.
Member-Driven Multi-Board Experiment/Future’s committee - 2018
• Seeking cross-board discussion utilizing TBL framework
8
The “Super Issue” meeting effort
Updates to the Board and Commission Manual
Ability to use MinuteTrac for board and commission processes
Development and inclusion in Engage
The Pilot joint board meetings
Board and Commission work plan reviews
9
Outcomes
Work more cross-functionally in advisory groups?
Broader topic area boards
Ensure specific stakeholder representation on all boards (youth,
women, seniors, mobility-impaired, equity-focused, etc.)
Other?
10
Outcomes
Align advisory boards to Outcome areas?
7 outcome focused boards
Group existing boards under an outcome area and focus workplans
to specific strategic objectives
Other?
11
Outcomes
Create more diversity in Board make-up and structure?
Variety of terms (1, 2 and 4 year)
More defined board member make-up
Use of more ad-hoc or temporary boards
Other?
12
Board and Commissions Diversity Index
13
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Race/Ethnicity Gender Identity LGBTQ Disability Income Age Veterans
Board & Commission Representation vs. City Demographics
Current Representation Parity with Community
Outcomes
Reduce the number of Boards and Commissions?
Alignment
Sunset timelines
Other?
14
Direction
1. What are the desired outcomes of this priority?
a. Work more cross-functionally in advisory groups?
b. Align advisory boards to Outcome areas?
c. Create more diversity in Board make-up and structure?
d. Reduce the number of Boards and Commissions?
2. What questions/suggestions does Council have moving forward?
15
50.00%
60.00%
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
Council District 6 and B&C Age Distributions
Population 28
District 6 B&C
as well as allowing
phone interviews or
scheduling applicant
interviews outside of
the workday schedule.
The Boards and
Commissions
questionnaire identified
the inability to be
physically present as a
potential barrier to
participation. Exploring
alternative methods for
participation may improve
access for community
members with barriers to
being physically present
as well as allow the City
to remain innovative in
our participatory
strategies.
Identify
potential code
changes
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office
2018
Ongoing Participation
4.5: Offer board
members opportunities
for public engagement
and involvement in
recruitment activities.
The Boards and
Commissions
questionnaire found that
members identified a
specific interest in
engaging with the public
to promote broader
participation.
Development
and
implementation
of key
strategies
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office, staff
liaisons and
Public
Participation
Team
2018
Council to consider.
Determine
structure of
participation
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office and
staff liaisons
2018
Ongoing Participation
4.1: Allocate $5,000 to
support
interpretation/translation
services, transportation,
and childcare for Board and
Commission members, as
needed.
The Boards and
Commissions
questionnaire found that
the majority of members
are White, homeowners,
have household incomes
exceeding $75,000, and
are over 50 years of age.
To expand membership,
we must work to remove
some of the most
common barriers
residents may have to
participation. Spending
will be analyzed to adjust
for future needs; as board
membership barriers and
needs fluctuate, spending
will need to remain
flexible and responsive.
Determine
who/how
funding will be
administered
Ongoing
funding
January
2018
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office and
Public
Participation
Team
Ongoing
Recruitment
1.3: Develop a flow chart
and timeline that clearly
and concisely describe the
application, interview, and
appointment process to
applicants.
Provide clarity and
expectations to potential
applicants.
Flow chart and
timeline
development
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office and
Public
Participation
Team
Fall 2019 for
January
2020
appointments
Application
2.1: Incorporate
demographic questionnaire
into applications
Compare the
demographic
representation of
applicants to Board and
Commission membership
to analyze if and where
we lose subsets of people
through the application
process.
Software
purchase (in
progress)
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office
Fall 2019 for
January
2020
appointments
Application
2.2: Adopt recommended
changes to Boards and
Commissions application.
(See Appendix E)
The scope of work
undertaken by this
subcommittee included
analyzing the Boards and
Commissions application
using an equity lens to
remove any potential
barriers to participation.
See Appendix
E
Time and
capacity of
City Clerk’s
Office
Fall 2018 for
January
2019
appointments
3 Determined through questionnaire findings and review of best practices