Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-12 City Council (14)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 12 FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE:APRIL 12, 1999 CMR:204:99 SUBJECT:PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT IN BRIEF Staff has evaluated the need for a parks and recreation advisory body using the Council- approved decision process for City boards, commissions and other advisory bodies. Based on this evaluation, and the input from parks and recreation affiliated organizations, staff proposes the creation of a Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC), which would be appointed by and report to the City Council. The purpose of the PRAC would be to advise Council on policy issues such as resource allocation, programs and services, long range plans, and capital development. The PRAC would be ongoing, permanent and wouk meet no less than quarterly or as needed. Seven members would serve staggered three-year terms. Staff support would be at the level of liaison. The proposed PRAC will require additional resources, in the Parks and Golf and Recreation, Open Space, and Scienc~: Division of the Community Services Department, at an annual estimated cost of $21,860. CMR:204:99 Page 1 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the staff proposal for the establishment of a Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) to report to and advise the City Council on policy issues relating to parks and recreation activities and services. BACKGROUND On December 14, 1999, staff transmitted an informational report to-Council that outlined staff’s intention to pursue the concept of a parks and recreation advisory body. (Attachment A, CMR:429:98). The Community Services Department presently has three commissions that report directly to Council on matters pertaining to the mission of the department: the Public Art Commission; Human Relations Commission; and the Library Advisory Commission. This leaves the department with only two divisions that lack a formal method of community input - the Parks and Golf Division and the Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Division. Staff evaluated this concept by using the step-by-step "decision tree" process approved by Council as part of the Advisory Bodies Policy. The intent of this process is to assure that any proposal for a new a~V,Tisory body is evaluated to: determine need, purpose, value and appropriate form; avo~ overlap or duplication of responsibilities; and assure that the necessary City resource .o support the proposed body are clearly acknowledged and are available. Consisting o~ ’ series of six questions or decision points, the "decision tree" facilitates an examinatio~ ~3f the intended function and purpose of the body, its citywide application, necessary cI~. ~fion, and possible viable alternatives. This analysis indicates whether to form a new . ~iy and what its appropriate form or "category" should be. The Advisory Bodies Polic~, ,,’:~ntifies three categories of advisory bodies: Category A, bo~es 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 Category C, bodies which support City functions and services but are generally responsible to their own boards of directors (e.g., Friends of the Children’s Theatre, Art Center Guild, Friends of the Library). CMR:204:99 Page 2 of 5 In addition to applying the Advisory Bodies Policy, staff raised the idea of a commission with organizations associated with parks and recre~ion activities. The Palo Alto Recreation Foundation, Friends of Foothills Park, Jr. Museum. ,, uild and the Golf Advisory Committee are in favor of the establishment of a commission. Staff has also been apprised, through phone calls and letters, that community members are interested in becoming commissioners. DISCUSSION A diagram summarizing the evaluation steps as applied to the proposed commission is attached (Attachment A, CMR:429:98). Based on this evaluation, and input from the community, staff proposes a Category A body, a commission, which would be appointed by and report to the City Council. The PRAC would be ongoing, pen~aanent and would meet no less than quarterly or as needed. Seven members would serve staggered three-year terms. Staff support would be at the level of liaison. All meetings would be open to the public and governed by the Brown Act and Robert’s Rules of Order. The purpose of the PRAC would be to advise the City Council on broad issues relating to parks and recreation services and programming, excluding administrative responsibilities such as personnel issues, budget management, and daily operations. By providing relevant expertise, a broad perspective and a mechanism to gather input from citizens, the PRAC would advise the City Council on issues such as resource allocation, programs and services, long range plans, and capital development. Duties of the Commission would include: Prioritizing projects and programs to best meet resident’s needs. Presently, staff arranges public meetings to help review specific plans and projects. These meetings are usually prompted by neighborhood or Council interest. A commission would provide another source of input in these matters and would facilitate a broader project review. Acting as a public platform to hear community concerns and find solutions to issues. Many issues could be explored and resolved before they reach the level which requires Council attention. Soliciting ongoing input regarding parks and recreation policies and services. 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. Reviewing major gifts of money, personal property and real estate donated to the City. CMR:204:99 Page 3 of 5 Rapidly changing demographics, the infusion of millions of dollars into parks and open space infrastructure, and the rising interest in preserving open spaces only increases the need for community interaction. Staff believes the challenges of the 21 st century can be best met with a committed team of Council members, City staff and residents all working toward the same goal. RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed PRAC will require additional resources in the form of a staff liaison to provide Commission with support. Brown Act requirements will increase the need for staff support for tasks such as preparation of detailed minutes and assistance with the research and preparation of staff reports related to Council assignments. This level of support will require additional clerical and administrative staff resources in the Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Division and Parks and Golf Divisions of the Department of Community Services. Specifically, it is estimated that the Commission will require 10 hours per month of clerical support at an estimated annual cost of $1,920 and 20 hours per month of supervisor level support at an estimated annual cost of $7,440. This support will allow the Director of Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Division and the Director of Parks and Golf to schedule staff assignments appropriately in order to provide support to the Commission. Annual non-salary costs, for such items as minutes transcription services, supplies, events, member recruitment, and noticing would be $12,500, including funds to broadcast the meetings. The total estimated annual cost is $21,860. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The evaluation of this proposal for a Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 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 staff proposal to establish a PRAC, staff expects to remm to the Council with an ordinance within three months. Selection and appointment of members is expected to occur in Fall 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The formation of an advisory body is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no environmental review is required. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:CMR:429:98 CMR:204:99 Page 4 of 5 PREPARED BY: , Richard James, Administrator, Community Services DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: PAUL THILTGEN Dir~or of CommuniCf CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~.~ i.,/Lz~,.__~ JUNE FLEMING City Manager CMR:204:99 Page 5 of 5 TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s .Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 14, 1998 CMR: 429:98 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 "fi, iends" 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 relaked to the Community Service 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 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 challengesof 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 opportunity 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 members of 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 HE PAU~L THILTGEN Director, Community Services Department CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Manager CMR: 429:98 Page 3 of 3 ~o