Audit and Finance seeks more input before voting on board and commission changes

The City Council Audit and Finance Committee on Wednesday deliberated scaling back about two dozen of the city’s boards, commissions and other governmental bodies but ultimately took no action pending further input from the affected groups.

The discussion centered on a City Council-approved resolution to consolidate or dissolve up to 36 citizen groups, although Council Member Ryan Alter, who sponsored the initiative, reduced the number to 26 after hearing feedback from commissioners and other volunteer members.

After lengthy consideration, Committee Chair Mayor Kirk Watson summarized the conversation by asking staff to gather more feedback from the existing bodies that would be impacted by merging with other citizen groups. A sunset review process should also be used for dissolving those governmental bodies that have been rendered inactive, Watson said.

The city clerk’s office, working with the city manager’s office, received only a few responses to each of the questions posed in an online survey, as part of the resolution’s direction. But Audit and Finance members, along with other Council members, have heard a lot from individual board members and commissioners.

The most vocal opposition came from members of the Resource Management Commission, which had been slated to merge with the Zero Waste Advisory Commission. Alter has since removed that merger from a list of proposed consolidations.

Additionally, the Urban Transportation Commission opposed merging with the Bicycle Advisory Council and the Pedestrian Advisory Council.

Alejandro de la Vega, vice chair of the Bicycle Advisory Council, told the committee that merging the UTC with the bicycle council “would actually diminish, not amplify, cyclist representation” in Austin. He noted that his group had received over 300 signatures in the last five days in support of keeping the Bicycle Advisory Council as a single entity.

Mayor Pro Tem Vanessa Fuentes said she had heard negative feedback from several of her commissioners about the potential changes.

“I certainly cannot support merging some of these commissions and would like further consideration of how that should look … and more time for the community to weigh in,” she said.

Council Member Chito Vela said he couldn’t see the logic of folding the Bond Oversight Committee into the Planning Commission.

“I consider those kind of two completely different functions,” he said. He said a more understandable scenario would be to merge the Planning Commission with the Zoning and Platting Commission; however, Alter countered that the Planning Commission already has a full plate.

Indeed, when City Council formed the two commissions in 2001, the Planning Commission was struggling to consider zoning cases while also trying to plan a future Austin with a more visionary mindset.

While the duties of both commissions have morphed over time, one recommendation under consideration is reassigning the two commissions’ roles, with ZAP taking up all zoning cases citywide while the Planning Commission focuses on planning, code amendments and capital planning.

Other potential changes include merging the Downtown Commission with the South Central Waterfront Advisory Board and the Tourism Commission, plus updating membership requirements for the Airport Advisory Commission.

Another direction from the resolution has already been completed: an online tracker that monitors all the recommendations made by city boards and commissions.

Alter stressed that his resolution would be a continuing conversation and suggested moving forward at a future meeting on any proposed changes that have consensus.

“I think that the staff has really laid out a great process for us to review these bodies, whether it’s for future consolidation or just scope adjustment,” he said. “It will allow for these boards and commissions to ultimately be more effective, and that’s the goal … not to get rid of anybody’s board or commission but to make their work more effective and to make it so that staff is not having to go to three different bodies and make the same presentation.”

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.