I’ll catch up on my coverage of the Planning Commission with a post on its November 26th meeting. One topic stood out: should the Planning Commission meet once or twice a month? Under the rules of the Planning Commission, the chairman can make that decision, but he sensibly allowed it to be a board decision. (How often one meets is something that all members should have a chance to discuss.)
I have advocated previously that less is more, and that meeting once a month would be a good idea.
Common Council president and voting member of the Planning Commission Marilyn Kienbaum favored keeping a twice-monthly meeting schedule, as (1) it would provide more opportunities for developers to meet the Commission, (2) more opportunities would allow a greater number of approvals, (3) Attorney Mitchell Simon — who handles fair amount of real estate work, and whose opinion she respects — supports the current, twice monthly-schedule, and (4) hinted that Whitewater might not need a city planner if the Planning Commission met only once monthly.
(Ordinarily, one might expect that I would be inclined to the view that we could do without a city planner. When someone says that the city might not need a planner, it’s almost like date music to a libertarian. I do not think that it was meant as a serious suggestion, however. In any event, it’s not the main question, but rather a possible, and only possible, consequence of deciding the main question. The main question is about how often to meet.)
The idea of meeting once-monthly is the more reasonable position. Kristine Zaballos noted, among other points, that (1) other communities’ commissions meet monthly, and (2) meeting monthly would provide an incentive for businesses and developers to submit complete, informative proposals (lest they have to wait another month). Presumably, it’s also an incentive for the planner city planner to gather all needed information for the commission (lest he be accused of inefficiency).
There is no competitive disadvantage where our commission would meet with the same frequency as others’ commissions. I do not believe that meeting more frequently has given us an advantage; in fact, it seems that meeting more frequently has led to less respect for the submissions process, the tendency to carry items from meeting to meeting, and more discussion of small matters. Part of Mrs. Zaballos’s point was that a change in process (meeting monthly) would lead to a change in behavior (more thorough submissions and less small-talk). She’s likely right. It’s reason enough to move to a monthly schedule. (Significantly, it does not depend on mere promises of better submissions and better review; the incentive is in avoiding a month’s delay.)
The decision at the November 26th meeting was 5 – 2 in favor of meeting monthly.