HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-14 City Council (19)TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s .Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES
DATE:DECEMBER 14, 1998 CMR: 429:98
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF A PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
This is an informational report and no Council action is required.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto has a Vibrant community participation system employing commissions, boards,
advisory bodies and "friends" groups. Established advisory groups have provided excellent
service to their respective programs. They have helped foster community interest, created
support mechanisms for the programs they serve, marshaled public involvement, and have
explored and found additional funding sources. They have proven to be a valuable asset to
the community and the programs they serve. Groups advising the Council on issues rela~ed
to the Community Servi.ce Department’s programs include:
Council Appointed and Subcommittees of Council Appointed Groups
Public Arts Commission
Human Relations Commission
Disability Awareness Task Force
Library Advisory Commission
Golf Advisory Committee
Self-Governing Groups
Cultural Center Guild
Friends of the Library
Friends of the Junior Museum and Zoo
Friends of the Foothills Park
Teen Center Board
Family Resource Center Committee
Friends of the Children’s Theatre
CMR: 429:98 Page 1 of 3
DISCUSSION
Within the Community Services Department, only two divisions lack this formal method of
community input - the Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation, Open Space and Sciences
Division (ROSS). To enhance community feedback and alleviate this inconsistency, staff
is planning to recommend to Council the creation of a parks and recreation commission.
The Parks and Golf Division and ROSS manage thousands of acres of public use land and
operate hundreds of recreational and educational programs. There is notable community
interest in these operations because residents use these services daily. This interest manifests
itself through public participation in park planning and scheduling meetings, open space
planning meetings, Council meetings, recreation clubs, "friends" and guild meetings, and
through the thousands of children, teens and adults who participate in classes and events each
year.
The need for a parks and recreation advisory body has never been greater. Rapidly changing
demographics make it imperative that there be a method to assess the community’s needs,
so services and programs remain vital and meaningful. The infusion of millions of
infrastructure dollars into parks and open space will warrant increased community input and
advice. The rising interest in preserving open spaces only increases the need for community
intercourse. Staff believes the challenges of the 21 st century can be better met with a team
of dedicated staff and residents all working toward the same goal.
A parks and recreation commission could act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and
City administration. A commission would have no administrative responsibility and no
jurisdiction over the services or operations of ROSS or the Parks and Golf Divisions. Duties
of the commission could include:
Assessing community needs and conditions:
A commission would present a forum to hear residents on topics ranging from park and
facility improvements to the types of classes and services desired by the community.
Acting as a forum for public complaints/issues: Many of these issues could be rectified
long before they reach executive management or the Council.
Acting as a forum for public review of projects/plans: Currently, staff arranges for
public meeting~ to help review plans and projects. These meetings are usually focused on
neighborhood or Council interest. A commission would provide another source of input in
these matters and would contribute a broader review of the projects.
Helping to prioritize projects and programs: With a citywide infrastructure program
about to begin, it would be helpful to give the public an oppommity to review project status
and provide feedback on the prioritization of projects.
CMR: 429:98 Page 2 of 3
Public Platform: Often, it is helpful to hear residents’ views on facility, parks and open
space policies to determine validity or needed revision.
Exploring funding sources: By networking, the commission members may be able to
identify possible funding sources in the community.
Building community consensus: A commission, working together, and representing all
areas of parks and recreation interests, could generate consensus on issues that may
otherwise have opposing views in the community.
Advocates for Parks and Recreation: A commission could make the community more
aware of the City’s recreation, golf, parks and open space assets, and thus, generate more
use.
Staff has reviewed this advisory commission concept with membersof the parks and
recreation community, which is supportive of the idea. Staff has applied the decision tree
process approved by City Council as part of the Advisory Bodies Policy. The Advisory
Bodies Policy process was established to assure that new advisory bodies were evaluated
based on set criteria that included: determination of need, purpose, value and appropriate
form; and to ensure that the necessary resources and support were clearly identified and
available. The attached decision tree analysis (Attachment One) suggests the need for a
parks and recreation commission or committee reporting to City Council.
Staffwill continue to study the concept and will return to Council with recommendations in
early 1999.
PREPARED BY: Richard James, Administrator, Community Services Department
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
PAUL THILTGEN
Director, Community Services Department
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
CMR: 429:98 Page 3 of 3