Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-04-13 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 9 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE:APRIL 13, 1998 CMR: 133:98 SUBJECT:EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN ADVISORY BODY FOR THE LIBRARIES REPORT IN BRIEF Staff has evaluated the proposal by the Friends of the Palo Alto Library (Friends) for a new library advisory body using the step-by-step "decision tree" process which is part of the Council-approved policies for City boards, commissions and other advisory bodies. Based on this evaluation, staff proposes a Library Advisory Committee (LAC), which would be appointed by and report to the City Manager. The purpose of the LAC would be to advise the City Manager on issues such as budget and resource allocation, programs and services, long range plans, capital development, and the role of technology. The LAC would be ongoing, permanent and would meet quarterly or as needed. Seven members would serve staggered 4-year terms, and staff support would be at the level of Liaison. The proposed LAC will require additional resources in the Libraries Division of the Department of Community Services, the annual cost of which is estimated to be $13,000. CMR:133:98 Page 1 of 7 RECOMMENDATION ~Staffrecommends that ’Council approve the staff proposal for an ongoing Library Advisory Committee to report to and advise the City Manager on policy issues relating to the libraries. BACKGROUND On July 17, 1997, the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library (Friends) sent Council the attached proposal for a Library Advisory Commission (Attachment A). On September 8, 1997, Council approved the recommendation of the Policy and Services Committee to: 1) adopt the policies for City Boards, Commissions and Other Advisory Bodies (Advisory Bodies Policy); and 2) direct staff to apply the evaluation process included in those policies to the proposal for a new library advisory body and return to the Council (CMR260:97). DISCUSSION Summary of Friends’ Proposal for a Library Advisory Commission The Friends’ July 17, 1997, proposal highlights issues facing Palo Alto which will have a significant effect on the future of the library system and its users, such as the role and use of technology, proposed closings or mergers of libraries, and the expansion of existing facilities. The proposal cites theneed for a Library Advisory Commission whose members, possessing relevant expertise and a broad perspective, would augment the work of the City Manager and library staff; gather input from citizens; build support for tough decisions; marshall public involvement; explore and advise about additional funding sources; and provide needed knowledge and experience in information technology. The Friends propose a Library Commission which would advise the City Council and staff in matters such as long range planning and development, and the annual library budget. The primary duty of the Library Commission would be to provide on-going citizen input to major policy areas. Specific proposed duties include: o Reviewing the annual library budget and making recommendations to the Director of ¯ Libraries and the City Council. Assessing community conditions which affect library goals and policies. Bringing forth policy issues which it believes should be addressed. Soliciting ongoing input regarding library policies and services. Reviewing major gifts of money, personal property and real estate donated to the City for library purposes. CMR: 133:98 Page 2 of 7 The Friends propose a Commission of seven members, with demonstrated interest in the City libraries, appointed by the City Council for terms of four years. Meetings are proposed to be monthly, open to the public and governed by the Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of Order. Evaluation Process and Criteria Staff evaluated the Friends’ proposal using the step-by-step "decision tree" process approved by Council as part of the Advisory Bodies Policy. The decision tree process is illustrated in the attached chart (Attachment B). The intent of this process is to assure that any proposal for a new advisory body is evaluated to: determine its need, purpose, value and appropriate form; to avoid overlap or duplication of responsibilities; and assure that the necessary City resources to stipport the proposed body are clearly acknowledged and are available. Consisting of a series of six questions or decision points, the "decision tree" facilitates an examination of the intended function and purpose of the body, its citywide application, necessary duration, and possible viable altematives. This analysis indicates whether to form a new body and what its appropriate form or "category" should be. The Advisory Bodies Policy identifies three categories of advisory bodies: Category A, bodies which advise/recommend to the Council, whose members are Council-appointed and whose responsibilities are specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (e.g., Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, Human Relations Commission); Category B, bodies which advise and are appointed by City officials and have a reporting relationship to the City (e.g., the Child Care Advisory Committee, Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee, Disability Awareness Task Force); and o Category C, bodies which support City functions and services but are generally responsible to their own boards of directors (e.g., the Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library, Canopy, and Neighbors Abroad). Evaluation of Proposed Library Advisory Body A matrix summarizing the six evaluation steps as applied to the proposed library advisory body is attached (Attachment C). For most of the steps, the matrix is self-explanatory. However, Step 3, which addresses the purpose and determines the appropriate category of the proposed body, is discussed below. Step 6, which addresses the availability of resources required to support the body, is discussed below under "Resource Impact." Step 3 of the evaluation process seeks to determine whether the purpose of the proposed CMR: 133:98 Page 3 of 7 body is to: recommend policy to the City Council (Category A); provide operational advice to the City Manager (Category B); or disperse information (Category C). As proposed by the Friends, the purpose of the library advisory body is to provide citizen input on library functions related to budget, resource allocation, programs and services, planning and future direction. Based on the this proposed purpose, staff concluded that input on these functions would be more valuable and effective if provided directly to the City Manager. As stated in the Advisory Bodies Policy chart (Attachment B), the City Manager-appointed alternative (Category B) appears limited to "operational advice," and the Council-appointed alternative (Category A) is related to "policy;" however, staff realized in.analyzing this proposal, that it would be appropriate for the advisory body to advise the City Manager on policy as it pertains to her responsibilities, per the City Charter, for preparing and submitting the budget to the Council and for ensuring the prompt efficient and economical performance of business in the departments which report to her. Staff evaluation of the most appropriate form for the proposed library advisory body revealed significant advantages to it being a Category B rather than a Category A body, as follows: The more informal structure and requirements of a Category B Advisory Body would encourage collaboration between the staff and members of the Advisory Body and provide.the opportunity to work together with the City Manager and other staff to improve libraries. This structure would allow for an open forum in which issues could be worked through before they go to Council, increasing the chances that recommendations would have community input as they are presented to Council. In addition, because the Category B Advisory Body advises and recommends to the City Manager directly, it avoids the lengthy process of the Category A Advisory Body, which must formally recommend to Council and then await the Council’s direction to the City Manager through the lengthy process of an agendized item at a City Council meeting. A Category B Library Advisory Body would have the opportunity at an earlier and more formative stage to provide input to the City Manager in the development of the library budget. As a Category B, the Library Advisory Body could advocate for libraries before the City Manager and the Council. Although the proposed Library Advisory Body would report to and advise the City Manager, this does not preclude it from advocating before the Council or from holding public hearings to solicit citizen input on library- related issues. CMR: 133:98 Page 4 of 7 Recommended Proposal for Library Advisory Committee Based on the Friends’ proposal and the above evaluation, staff proposes a Library Advisory Committee (LAC), which would be appointed by and report to the City Manager. The LAC would be ongoing, permanent and would meet quarterly or as needed. Seven members would serve staggered 4-year terms. Staff ~upport would be at the level of Liaison (refer to Attachment C for definition). The purpose of the LAC would be to advise the City Manager on broad issues relating to the libraries, excluding administrative responsibilities, such as personnel issues and daily operations. By providing relevant expertise, a broad perspective and a mechanism to gather input from citizens, the LAC would advise the City Manager on issues such as budget and resource allocation, programs and services, long range plans, capital development, and the role of technology. Responsibilities of the LAC would include the following: Provide input to the City Manager on library-related policy and funding, including the operating budget and capital improvement program; Communicate to the City Manager community needs and conditions which affect library goals and policies; Explore additional sources of and build support for funding; Solicit citizen input and marshall public involvement. Advise City Manager on long range planning and resource allocation decisions involving technology/automation, service delivery, and infrastructure. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION As alternatives to the staff recommendation, Council could approve a Council-appointed (Category A) library advisory body or approve no library advisory body. On several occasions, staff has met with representatives of the Friends Board of Directors to present and discuss its recommendation. The Friends’ Board has concluded that it cannot support the staff-proposed Library Advisory Committee appointed by the City Manager and that it intends to work for a Library Commission appointed by the Council. As discussed above, based on its evaluation, staff has concluded that there is a need to have an advisory body to address the concerns of the libraries and that the most appropriate form would be a Category B body reporting to the City Manager. CMR: 133:98 Page 5 of 7 RESOURCE IMPACT As stated in the attached matrix, the proposed LAC will require additional resources in the form of a staff liaison to support it. This level of support will require both clerical and administrative staff resources in the Libraries Division of the Department of Community Services. Specifically, it is estimated that the LAC will require 15 hours per month of clerical support at an estimated annual cost of $3,000 and 30 hours per month of Senior Librarian support at an estimated annual cost of $8,500. The Senior Librarian support will allow the Director of Libraries to rearrange assignments in order to free up time to work with the LAC. Annual non-salary costs are estimated to be $1,500, for a total estimated annual cost of $13,000. The above estimate for additional resources assumes the LAC will not be subject to the Brown Act. However, if the City Attorney determines the LAC is subject to the Brown Act, or if the Council chooses to accept the Friends’ proposal and create a Category A Advisory Body for the libraries, the Brown Act requirements will increase the need for staff support for tasks such as preparation of more detailed minutes and assisting with the research and preparation of staff reports related to Council assignments. Specifically, the clerical staff support required would be a .25 Office Specialist at an annual cost of $10,000, and the administrative support would be .25 of the Senior Librarian at cost of $12,500. Annual non- salary costs, for such items as supplies, events, member recruitment, and noticing would- increase to $10,500, including funds to broadcast the meetings, for a total estimated annual cost of $33,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The evaluation of this proposal fora library advisory body is consistent with the Policies for Boards, Commissions and Other Advisory Bodies which was approved by Council on September 8, 1997. TIMELINE Following Council approval of the proposal, staff could accomplish the appointment and orientation of the LAC within in two months. The LAC would then be ready to review the draft Library Master Plan, which was referred by Council to the Policy and Services Committee on March 16, 1998. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The formation of a Library Advisory Body -is not a project under the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required. California CMR: 133:98 Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: July 17, 1997 Proposal from Friends of the Library Chart Illustrating Evaluation Process Summary Matrix of Evaluation Process PREPARED BY: Janet Freeland, Senior CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Cit~ Manager cc:Friends of the Palo Alto Public Library CMR:133:98 Page 7 of 7 ATTACHiVlENT A ’ 97 3UL 28 P.C. Box 41 Pato Alto, California, 94302 FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO PUBLIC LIBRARY July 17,1997 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 Dear City Council Members, The topic of establishing an Advisory Library Commission has been before the Council since 1994. At the August 5th me&ting of the Policy and Services Committee, we will ask the Committee to recommend to Council the creation of a 7-member Advisory Library Commission. The need for a Library Commission has never been greater. Palo Alto is facing a number of significant decisions, regarding our libraries: the role and use of technology, proposed closings or mergers of libraries, and the expansion of existing facilities--all decisions that will have a profound effect on the quality of our library system and its users well into the next century. A Library Commission whose members represent relevant expertise and a broad perspective would augment the good work of our City Manager and our fine library staff. A Library Commission would be the mechanism for gathering input from our citizens and in building support for tough decisions. It could also explore and advise about additional fund sources to support our libraries. It could provide needed knowledge and experience in information technology, which’ already represents a huge portion of the library’s budget and could grow even large’f as new policies and plans are enacted. These 21 st Century challenges can best be met by marshaling public iuvolvement through a Library Commission. Attached to this letter is our proposal for an Advisory Library Commission. We strongly urge the Policy and Services Committee and the full City Council to adopt this proposal. The complexity and challenges of issues facing our library system makes establishing such a commission a high priority. We look forward to working with you to make this proposal a reality. Sincerely yours, President Friends of the Palo Alto Library P.O. Box 41 Palo Alto, California, FRIENDS OF 94302 THE PALO ALTO PUBLIC LIBRARY PALO ALTO FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY PROPOSAL FOR AN ADVISORY LI]3RARY COMMISSION By ordinance the city of Palo Alto under its city charter, create an Advisory Library Commission: "The library commissioners shall : a. act in an advisory calSacity to the City Council and Director of Libraries in matters pertaining to the city libraries; the long range plan development; and fts progress. b.review the annual budget of the City Library, and make recommendations concerning the budget to the Director of Libraries and City Council. POWERS: The Library Commission acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council and City Administration. The Commission has no administrative responsibilities and has no jurisdiction over the services or operation of the libraries. It does, however, work towards establishing and maintaining the highest level of service attainable. Duties The primary duty of the Library Commission is to provide on-going citizen input to major policy areas. To accomplish this, the Commission has the following specific duties: 1.Annual Budget. The Library Commission reviews the annual library budget and. makes recommendations to the Director of Libraries and City Council. 2. Community Conditions. The Commission assesses community conditions which affect library goals and policies. 3. Policy Issues. The Commission brings forth policy issues which it believes P.O. Box 41 Palo Alto, California,94302 FRIENDS OF THE PALO ALTO PUBLIC LIBRA RY ADVISORY LI]3RARY COMMISSION PROPOSAL PAGE 2 should be addressed. Director of Libraries may also bring before the ’Commission, ideas, issues, and concerns for discussion and review. 4. Community Input. The Commission solicits on-going input regarding library polices and services. When appropriate, the Commission holds public hearings on current issues. 5.Major Donations:Review major gifts of money, personal property, or real estate, donated to the city for library purposes. Membership. The Palo Alto Advisory Library Commission shall consist of seven members appointed by the City Council. The members shall have a demonstrated interest in the city libraries. Term of Office. Commission members shall serve for a term of four years. Terms shall be staggered. Officers. A Chairperson and vice-chairperson shall be elected annually by the members of the Library Commission. Meetings. Meetings shall be held monthly, open to the public, and governed by the Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of Order.. July 17, 1997 ATTACHMENT B Jl. Who is proposing the body? Citizen group(s) [ l a. Could function be performed by: I Category C: Neighborhood Association Friends of... Council Business group(s) Category C: Chamber of Commerce Downtown Association CAADA Other non-profit (YES) 2a.City Manager Action 2b.Council appointed Ad Hoc or Task Force 2. Will body need to be Ongoing/ Permanent? Citywide? (YES) 3. What is the purpose of body? Other organization (YES) 3a.Recommend Policy to City Council 3b.Operational Advice to] City Manager Category A: CC Appointed Board/Commission Category B: CM Appointed Committee 4, Could function be performed by existing board/commission/committee? (YES). 4a.Within current 4b. By expanding mission missmn 5. Will body require additional city resources? ~YES) .6. Will necessary resources beavailable? BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE IS FORMED (Category A or B) 3c. Information dispersal Internet City Staff ¯Friends of... Other ATTACHMENT C