Department of Community Development
Reference: Boards and Commissions Compensation
To: Mayor Gregory Mills and Members of City Council
Chair Chris Maslanik and Members of the Planning Commission
Through: Michael P. Martinez, City Manager
Prepared By: Mike Tylka, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development
Stephanie Iiams, Assistant Planner
Date Prepared: January 9, 2023
PURPOSE
With open positions on the Planning Commission not attracting many applicants, with positions sitting vacant for longer than desired, and with a workload that is attracting an increasing level of public involvement, certain Members of the Planning Commission recently discussed the possibility of compensation and expanded recognition efforts. In response to these points being raised, City staff conducted a review of what other jurisdictions have implemented in these areas. A portion of these findings were shared previously with the Planning Commission, and at this time, City staff and the Chairman of the Planning Commission would like to share their expanded findings with the City Council.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Compensation:
Staff reached out to ten nearby jurisdictions city clerk’s offices to ascertain as to whether their Planning Commissions are compensated or not. As you will see demonstrated in the chart below, financial compensation is provided to the majority of the nearby jurisdictions’ Planning Commissions, on a per meeting basis, with a range of $50 to $100. For the most part, all jurisdictions that offer financial compensation have a population of 100,000 or more with the exception of Commerce City and Northglenn. As for other boards and commissions, not many receive financial compensation. Three jurisdictions did note that they compensate their Board of Adjustment, and one municipality stated that their Liquor Authority Board receives compensation. The outlier in the collected data is Thornton where all boards and commission members are paid. The parties contacted in each jurisdiction that offers financial compensation commented that they do not find it to be a primary incentive for recruitment. These parties stated that they find that most do it for the chance to be involved and have an impact on their community. For the jurisdictions that do not offer financial compensation, the contacted parties stated they do not find it to be a hindrance for recruitment.
[1] Alternate members receive $25 per meeting they attend.
[2] Does not have a Planning Commission as everything is sent to their Board of Trustees who are compensated monthly.
[3] Does not receive financial compensation for study sessions.
[4] Replaced Planning Commission with a Permits and Appeals Board, who receives compensation as noted.
Incentives and Recognition:
As part of staff’s research, jurisdictions were asked if they provided incentives and recognitions, in addition to, or as an alternative to compensation. In addition to Brighton, two municipalities, Fort Lupton and Commerce City, provide a recreational incentive. In this, Fort Lupton provides half-off recreation center daily passes and green fees at their golf course, while Commerce City offers a free membership to the recreation center to board/commission members. Other incentives noted were providing training opportunities, conferences, and memberships to relevant groups. The City of Aurora representative explained that various boards utilize their designated budget to provide off-site training opportunities or conference attendance to their members. Although some jurisdictions offer these additional incentives, staff found the majority (five (5) out of nine (9)) do not offer them. Meanwhile, almost all jurisdictions provide ways to recognize their commissioners whether it be providing dinner at each public meeting, annual holiday banquets, end of year gifts, etc. The City of Northglenn noted that they hold an annual dinner/tour specifically with their Planning Department.
Recruitment:
Another component of this research looked to delve into recruitment. Staff sought out as to if nearby jurisdictions typically have a lot of interest in joining boards and commissions, and where their recruitment efforts are focused and where membership generally comes from. Staff found that only one jurisdiction, Arvada, expressed that they have significant interest in serving on their boards and commissions. The majority of jurisdictions (Aurora, Commerce City, Northglenn, Thornton, Weld County, and Westminster) expressed that they receive “adequate” interest. This being that they are able to fill most vacancies shortly upon a position being vacated and tend to have a few community members on waiting lists for select boards. Two jurisdictions, Adams County and Fort Lupton, expressed difficulty in recruiting for vacancies. As for recruitment efforts, it was relatively consistent that jurisdictions are utilizing social media platforms, their website, holding recruitment events with staff, and relying on the networks of involved parties in their communities.
NEXT STEPS
City staff, if directed by the City Manager, will carry out further action on any of the above-mentioned items if desired.
ATTACHMENTS
● Draft Staff Presentation