Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0177.094, February 24, 1994 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, california ADOPTION OF CITY POLICIES REGARDING puBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND FBB WAIVERS Members of the Council: REpoRT IN BRl EF 4 This report transmits a December 9. 1993 staff report (CMR:598:93) that was reviewed by the Policy & Se~rices Committee on February 1, 1994. The Committee recommended app~oval of the ordinance attached to the December 9 staff report. Staff has identified a correction to the ordinance and the corrected ordinance is attached. Ordinance Correction The recorTlro_ended fee waiver pelicy attached to trle Decew.her S staff report indicates (last bullet item on page 1 of the policy} that. City Council waiyer of fees can be considered -for construction of facilities to be owned. or controlled, and operated by the City (e.g., Childrenis Theater).-The worda -and operated-were not included in the ordinance considered by the ~olicy and Services Committee. A corrected crdinance is attached. . , ':'-. / BECOHMENDATION It ie recommended that the Council adopt the Public/Private Partnership Policy attached to the December 9, 1993 staff report and the ordinance amending Section 1.08.110 [Fees) attached to this staff report:. Respectfully submitted, x;:i.N~K. S~.dA" KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: Ordinance ~Jl\\\~~r BE..~ M. STRQJNI' Assistant City Manager Dece~r 9, 1993 Staff Report C'MR:17i:.94 p:\cmr\feew&lvc.cmr 2/24/94 2 ORD INA..tieR NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 1.08 [VIOLATIONS) 01' THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE AUTHORITY FOR WAIVERS OF FEES UNDBR THE ~UNICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH BENEFIT THE CITY The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: S,ECTION 1. Section 1.08.1..10 [Fees] of the Palo AltO' Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 1.08.110 Pees for licence., p~t8$ servic9s$ eto., use of city facility or serviae. (a} The city manager shall establish a schedule of fees and rates fer all types of services ,p~rfonned by city departments undel." ft4..e ~.h~r:'''~~'. control, excepc utility rates and chargee, admissions, golf course fees and nonresident library fees, to be set forth in a document to be known as the -municipal fee schedule-. Such document shall list all fees, rates and charges, except utility rates and charges, charged and collected by any department of the city and shall be available to the public for examination by request. (b) Any change in any fee established by the city manager shall became effective upon commencement of the thirty-first day following notice Bent to the council. except fees established pursuant to aD emerge~cy ordinance of the city council~ or fees changed by the city council after such notice. If any fee is changed by the city council by motion action~ in such case said cbanged fee shall be effective on the next weekday following such council action, or at Buch other time specified by the council. (e) ~t"':Caa<h~,in1lUbsec:t'cm'(dr:"ot 'i:i\iIi ~r i't!',~~ibO!" uillawful for any persooto u'se""~ <welt.y faciIity' 'or service without paying the prescribed fee or charge therefor. 1 ..fet-ifiQ Th-3 finance &68 IHt~lie weE}tS comnittee D".ay rev1'ew any fee in the muLicipal fee schedule d\!ring the annual budget review process. SBCTION 2. ordinance is Dot a Environmental Quality The City Council hereby finds project for purposes of the Act. that this California SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon the ccmnencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its passage. INTRODUCED : PASSRO: AYES: ROBS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS : A'I"l'BST: City Clerk APPROVBD AS TO PORM: Senior AaBt. City Attorney 2 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Finance Director of Planning and Ccmmunit'l Bnvironment Director of Public Works Director of Community Servi~es , December 9, 1993 HONDRABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Adoption of City Policies Regaroing p...!blic/Pri vate Part nershi as and Fee Wa i vers Members of the Council: Rf'iPQrt in Brief This report responds to an April 5, 1992 COQncil aS$ignmenc to staff to develop a policy regarding facilitation of publici private partnerships and an ordinance w~iving fees fer certain projects (Be~ attached 4/2/92 memorandum). A recommended policy Statement and Fee Waiver Ordinance are attached. Work en this assignment identified closely related issues involving City co­ sponsorship of events and Police t'epartment fees for providing assistance at private events. Development of proposed policies regarding these later items is nearing completion and will be the subject of a forthcoming staff r,eport. Staff recommends that this report~ along with the forthcoming staff report on a proposed Co-sponsorship Policy and Police Department fees, be referred to the Policy and Services Committee for review in ea-rly 1994. Policy to EncQurage and Facilitate Partner5~ The attached Public/Private Partnerships policy~ if adopted, would establish a City Council policy to encourage the development of public-private partnerships. In carrying O-LJt this policy. the City would actively promote formation of partnerships rather than the historic pattern of primarily waiting for private or nonprofit organizations to develop proposals. C~ty promotion of partnerships could railge from co-sponsorship of activities to solicitation of ~roposals to facilitation of proposals through the City review process. The City Manager has established a staff Public/Private Partnership Co:r.mittee that 'Would facilitate review and decisi~n making on both propcsals received from outside the city organization and concepts identified by City om,s9a,93 9 staff. Formation of the Committee is in response to the need to '.,mderstand and facilit.ate int.eractior..s bet· .... een the pu.blic and private sectors. One relevant work area is to eee that potential partnerships receive a cocrdi~ated multi-department response ru~d timely decision making. The attached policy does not address cQ-sponsorship of activities and Police Department fees. The complexity and irnpol"tance of co­ sponsorship has resulted in staff undertaking work on a separat.e Co-sponsorship Policy statement that, along with recommendations on Police Department fees, will be for~arded to th~ Council in a separate staff report. Waiv~r of Clty Fees The attached policy identifies an approach to waiyer of City fees that is based partially on the Children's Theater expansion project (see attached excerpt of May 28, 19.91 Council minutes) . Any waiver of fees would need to be approved by the City Council. The co~~cil would have authority to waive fees only for constructiQn or capital projects which, upon completion, result in a ~ew or improved putlic facility, building cr pa~k that would be solely owned or controlled by the City+ For a project that would result in a portion of the construction effort becoming a City facility. the waiver of fees would apply only to the portion of the project's fees applicable to the :uture City facility. This fee waiver procedure is contained in the attached ordinance am~,ding Section 1.06.110 [Fees] of the Municipal Code. The recommended fee waiver procedure is narrowly drawn, out of concern that a more flexible approach (e.g .• potentially waiving fees for ·public services· or 'public facili~iesN} would open the City to many fee waiver requests from nonprofit and for-profit organiza~iQns providing what they perceive to be a public service {e.g.~ recreational, medical or social service providers). This approach forces Council to made decisions on a more subjective basis and may have the pctential for conflict of in~erest due to the n~~er of nonprofit agencies receiving direct and indirect City assistance+ ~nvironmental Review Adoption of the attached policy and ordin~~ce amending the Fees section of the ~~icipal Code is not a Project under the California Er.vironmental ~~ality Act. ahd no environmen~al review or finding is necessary. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council refer tr~e attached Public/Private Partnership Policy and the attached ordinance CMR, 598,93 12/9/93 Page 2 amending Section 1.OS.110 [Fees] of the Palo Alto Mu~icipal ~ode to the policy and Services Ccmm.!ttee. Respectfully submitted, -j£;t.MY{· '1:7jd:~ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER ,9 Director of Pl~~ing and Community Environment ~ ~~\ ' (\1J.1.iJ /"j lJ.N.~'jv .... TuNE FI"EMIN'G City Manager I.: ~r),;-I () V./. ~L L<..L,;; . ./· EMrLY HARRISON "'­ Director of Finance" Attachments: public/Privats Partnership Policy Ordinance April 2, 1992 Memorandum Excerpt of the May 28, 1991 Council Minutes 12/9/93 page 3 ... -. PUJlLIC/Pf3,IVAIE PARTNIRSRIPS POLl CY STATEMENT It is the policy of 'the City of Palo Alto to encourage the development. of public/private partnerships. A public/pri ..... ate partnership is defined as cooperation between the pri\~ate sector or nonprofit organizations and the City in providing 5~rvices, facilities or other capital projects to the coml'l',Unity. Fublic/priva~e partnErships may take different forms. Two of the most common include: • Cooperative partnerships; This approach assumes cooperation between the public and private or nonprofit sectors in order to achieve ~Jtually shared objectives. Examples include construction of the expansion to the Children's Theatre; the City's relationship with the Senior Center and the Palo Alto Housing Corpc·ration; aDd the Economic OUtlook Ccmmi t tee. • Inducements: In this approach, the City structures incentives that chang~ the market environment in which the private sector operates in order to achieve social goals. Examples include the PARTNERS program in the Utilities Department; and the 250 University Avenue development, in which increased s9~are footage and relaxed height restrictions were exchanged by the City for public parking and dedicated alley improvements. CITY ROL£ IN PARTNERSHIP FORMATION The City has historically acted primarily as a passive recipient of proposals for public/private partnerships. It is the intent of this policy, however, to promote the active participation of the City in the formation of such partnerships. 'Active participation' could include: • Facili~ation of proposals through the City's regulatory process (e.g. 250 University); • Solicitation of proposals for public/private ventures (e.g. Towf!r Well site, Chuck Thompson site); • waiver of fees by the City Council for construction of facilities to be owned. or ccntrolled~ and operated by the City (e.g. Children's Theatre); page 1. -' • Use of fa~il.ities/s\Jbsidizec rent (e. g. Cu.bberleyJ. F"roposals for a public/private partner-ship opportunity are normally =ec~ived by City staff from private sector or no~profit organizations. They may also be referred by the City Council te­ staff for revie .... · and recommendation. An impcrtant component for facilitating public/private partnerships ia the ability of the City to react q'...J.ickly and comprehensively to a proposal. Also of importance for some p~"oposals is the impact of City processing fees. The follo ..... ing procedures establish a mechanism to obtain prompt and co:npI-e­ hensive initial City re'ne\li of a p:r-oposal a:ld consideratior.. of requests for wCiiving City fees. Public/Privat.e Committee: A Public/PI-i vate Review Commi tt.ee shall be appointed by t~e City Manager, with representation fro~ the Police, Fire~ Public Works, Community Senrices, Planning ar..d Fl.nance Departments, as well as the City Attorney's Office. As appropriate, staff frQm other departments who are involved in a public/private proposal may also participate on the Committee. The Committee shall be chaired by the City Manager or his/her designee. The ~ommittee shall meet as required to review public/pl."ivate proposals, but no less than quarterly. Pros and cons of a propcsal will be identified and dis~ussed. A summary of each private or non-profit sector proposal will be forwarded to the City Council. accompanied by a recommendation from the City Manager to the City Council on whether the City should ,participate. The aumrnary and recommendation to the City Council will be prepared whether or not the City staff support the proposal as a publIc/private partnership. Fee Waiver: The Public/private Committee may recommend~ as part of its review of a proposal~ that any normal City processing or use fees under t.he MUa"licipal Fee Schedule, not including fees and charges levied by City of Palo Alto utilities~ be ~aived as a part of the Cityrs participation in appropriate public/private partnerships. Waiver of fees shall be by the C~cy Council and limited to those fees associated with a construction or capital project which, upon its completion, results in a new or improv~d public facility, building or park, or some portion thereof, that will be solely owned or controlled by the City. !n the event that only some portion of a c~nstruction or capital project will result in a new or improved City facility, building or park, or some portion thereof, then the City Council may only waive that portion of any associated fees directly relating to the construction, improvement or enhancp.ment of the City facility, building or park~ If appropriate, the summary and recD~~endation report to the City Council will include a recommendation on waiving fees~ and the Council can approve or deny the waiver recommended by staff. page 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANC;;: OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 1. OS (V!OLATIONS] OF THE r'AloO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODP' TO PROVIDE AL"rHORITY FOR WAIVERS OF FEES UNDER TdE Mt~ICIPAL FEE SCHEDULE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH BENEFIT THE CITY The Council of the City of Palo Altc does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Sectioo 1.08.110 (FeE'S] of the Palo Alto M~nicipal Code is hereby amendsd to read as follows: 1 .. 06.110 Pees for licer;.ses .. permits, services, etc.; use of city facility or service. {a) The city manage:r shall establish a s.::::hedule of fees and rates for all types, of s_eIVices "performed by city departments under ~ tbe'_ ;:na.nage-~#'s: control, except utility ra.tes and charges; ad.missidns", golf cou~se fees and nonresident library fees, to be set forth in a document to be known as the ·municipal fee scbedule". Such document S~l list all fees, rates and charges I except utility rates and charges, charged and collected by any department of the city and shall be available to the public for examination by request. (b) Any change in a.ny fee established by the city manager shall become effective upon cO'\'l1mencement of the thirty-first day following notice sent to the council, except fees established pursuant to an emergency ordinance of the city council, or fees changed by the city council af~er euch notice~ If any fee is Changed by the city council by motion action, in such case said changed fee sr..a.ll be effective cn the next 'Weekday follQ1l{ing such council action, or at such ether time specified by the council. (c) txCoipt' >'as,o,rtWidedl:il"eubSect:i"i';',{dj 'jOf ,> >this ~i>il';it 'I."'fl'''hall~Unla\ifUl for any "eis;o to use""'arly""·city facility·'''''or'--' service without paying the prescribed fee or charge therefor. (d) _ NotwiHista.!idl.n~i,.suiiBecti.on""{c), of: 'this':G£!cf:t6n~ ,the ~_it-y :council may, :;Ii[l;, 'its '-'discretion,: ;"waive ,:9JlY '-of tbe fees set forth "i.ti,:t:he municipal ,fee ,sch.ed!ll~ 'that, would 'app,ly, ,t:o ,'a-pri1.ra~~",~?ject·' :to,' ~ons,~ct:1 ': ~rove ,,'or otherwi.se '-e:nhance .. :a _,new "or, :existfng 'pub~i,c::>.facility, building -or park. A '·construction or ,,'-capital ",project eligible .for such 'fee "Waiver tmlrst, result,in a new or imprO'led public ,fa.cilit.y, building -or pa-::k., or 'some _~.~A.JJ) portion thereof:, that will be solely 'owned or controlled .,..,.J or"""'-­ by t.he city upon ,t!le project's completion.' in the event that on~y sO(ne portion of a 'construction or capital project will result in a new or improved city facility, 1 " building or park, or some portion thereof~ then the city council may only waive those portions of any associated fees, on a pro rata basis, that directly relate ~o the cOIlstruction, improvement or enhanceme.ct. of the cit.y racility. building or park. -I<i+-(e) review an.'"1ual The finance aHe fHt191ie -we-~ corord ttee any fee in the municipal fee schedule du:-ing budget review proces~. may tne .SECTION 2. ordinance is not a Environmental Quality The City project Act. Council hereby for purposes of finds the that this California SECTION J. This or,·:i.inance shall becorr,e ef!ecti ve upon the commencement of the thirty-first day after the date oE its passage. INTRODUCED: PASSlID: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATI"EST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 APFROVED: Mayor Ci ty l'I.anager Director of Finance Dire-ctor of Planning and Coaununity Environment Director of Public Works Director of Coarnuni ty Se-rvices .----.--.-~-----_i DATE: April 2, i 991 Office (If (he Ci!j' Council M [ M 0 RAN D U ~1 TO. Our Council Co !leagues FROM: Council Member; McCown, Hub<r, and Cobb SUBJECf: Public/PrIvate Partnerships and Fee \\;ai .... ers ." Last year, the City COline;] approved a request from the Frienjs of the Children's Theatre to waive certain City application/permit fees in (onnection wilh the Children's Theatre expansiort ..concern was expressed by some Council Members: that poliCY guidelines needed to be de\'eJo9~d so fholt we would not be fJced with ad hoc requests (and responses). particulariy given the fact lh;'l! these type~ of ·public/pri .... a!e partnerships· are :something the City wm want to encouri.lg~ in the future. Rece.,.t correspondence from ttJe Pato AltO Recreation Foundation re Cubberley and previous correspondence from the Standing Committee on the Arts (attached] illustrat-es the commun~ly's continued interest in tti1S subject. If publ..k/priva1e partnerships are to be a useful part of our City's future, we shQuld try to avoid unnecessary inJpedimen:s. ;:0 peop!: getting involved, ·",'hether through their rime or money or both. 1£ we can put in place a process tnaI facilitates these efforts, we mighi also make them mcr~ like!y !o OCt'llr. Senior maJ1.age:rnent staff has already begun [0 discuss how such public/prjv2t~ partnership~ CCin be encouraged and f;::cili!aled, and the City Attorney'S office has given thOl.:ght to how fee waivers mis!ht be accommodated through ordjn:mce cn.anq,es. Accordingly, ~.e. lilirili move that the Coun;n direct staff-to;'" ... 1. Draft policy guidehnes, to be impiemented in ordinance form as :appropriate. to permit walver of City" perrnit/.applic<.Jtion re-es far projects whkh meet the criteri.tl present in the Chrldrer.'sTheatre siw.nior.., i.e., pro\,j~ron of private fU .... lds/services 10 mike capital Lmproyeme~ts to 3 City facility which wiH continL!e to be own!!"d and operated ClS p'arl of City prograII1$; and 2. Report to the City Council regarding other approaches the City might take to er.cour.Jge and fJcilirme community 'Oi1U~blltion. to and pflrricipation in public-private p:.mnerships to mOlfnlain 3!1d improve: com.munity filcilities, services and progr:lms. Attachment • Council Member Ren~el said based on the number of c~lls, it did not seem to be a problem which req~ired a ban on alcohol at El Ca~ino Park. She agreed with the saf~ty conce~ns raised ~ith respect to the 5k&tQboar~ facility. JlanO!! nTIWltA1Ill B r I!AJtD. AND SECONDER. council Member McCown said staff had been instructed to prepare an ordinance and return to Council. In the future when there was an issue where research and analysis was required from staff to evaluate whether to proceed in a certain direction, council should direct staff to return with the staff report first and then it Council believed an ordinance was appropriate direct them to proceed. The amount ot time spent could have been avoided it the policy intormation 'Was presented first rather than afte.r the ~r4inance process. Fo action taken. REPORTS OF OFF!CI!TS 9. Request of Friends (OIR: 298: 91) of Children's Theater (1304-01) Susan Stevart~ 1550 Middlefield Road, Board Member of the Friends of Children's Theater, clarified the Board was justified in asking for a ~aiver of the fee because the project w~s different than any other project the city had done in cooperation with a group. The waiver was not being asked rOT on beha.l.f of the Friends because the building t.."as not a building for the Friends or for use by the Friends" but was a building :tor the City of Palo A,lto. It wa.s differsnt than a project for the Gamble Garden. The City would be given a major ~apital improvement which would be controlled by tt,e city. The Friends would bave no interest in it. The value of the addition was estimated between $500,000 to $650,000. Since the project was worth over $500,000, financed with private funds, was undertaken solely tor the benefit of the city, and would be under the City's full control upon co~pletion, the fee assessed for the project should be waived~ The Council should encourage their efforts. carl Gillespie, 4142 Amaranta Court, President of Friends of the Childrents Theater, concurred with Ms. Stewart and was disappointed in the staff report CCMR.:298:91). The City had been asked to waive the fee.&-. The orqanization was past the balf-way point in the amount ot money raised, and the Friends had tried to meet the requirements of the City. To protect the citizens' interest, they had obtained liability insurance and were willinq to work with the City. Many of the volunteers did not have children. actively involved in the Children's Theater. He urged the Council to respond positively to the request that the city fees be waived for a major gift to Palo Alto. 5/28/91 66-227 -------------...,.., Patty Hoagland McEwen r 753 Garland Drive. ~ember on the Board of Dir~etors of the Friends of the Children's Theater, had maintaineQ interest and support of the ChildL'en's Theater for many years. The program had expanded during that time, but the facili t.y was :bur~tin9 at the seamS. The Friends had decided to build an addition to the Children's Theater, which ~ould enable the staff and the program to accommodate all the children. The ,Friends have raised approximately $400,000. The approval process was started becausoe as new grant applications 'Were sent out, it ..... ould be important to have the City I S approval and .... ai ving of the fees would show that support. They understood the difficult position the City was in, but the support would be appreciated by hundreds of people. Laura Selznick f 3451 Waverley Street, President-elect of Friends of the Children's Theater, said the City's fees connected vith the approval of the plans affected the Children's Theater and would elso affect the construction of CUbberley, which would be the only similar policy that might come before the council. The council could draft ill polley 'Which would be narrow enough to help the projects the City wanted to heIr and support those partnerships whiCh Would S4ve ~oney and enhanc~ facilities. The criterion for the policy could be th-at the city would own the facility -when completed, steffing and maintenance paid by the city, construction would be under city guidelines and would cost over $1 million collars which would be raised by the citizens, and the city WOuld not pay the cost of construction or the management of co~~truction. The City was the homeowner of the building and was paying t~ro for the building. She urged the council not to :focus on the bottom line. council Member McCown queried the procedure followed for work being done on a City buildinq. City Man.aqer Bill Zaner said if there were charge.s between .funds, the City did chC!l1;"ge~ In addition, all projects pa.id the usual overhead charqes which amounted to charges ~etveen departments, i.e., a project done in the P'.!blir:: Works Department carried a.n overhead which included time spent by the City Attorney, City Maneger, and Finance Department. Council Member McCown queried the pri~r requests to waive fees. Mr. Zaner said the staff supported the project. His recommenoation ¥as based on what might happen in the future and actions in the past which had nothing to do with the project and vas a matter of policy. There had been requests to waiv~ fees from almost every aqency to whom money was given under Community Development Block Grant (COBG) for ccnstruction projects which was not qiven. He recently turned down the req~est from the Y.K.C.A. for reduction of fees for their environmental i~pact report. Gamble Garden asked for a waiver of fees on a fluml:ler of items Which 'Was not qiven. When the storm Drain Utility was approved, there were a number of organiza.tions who asked for relief which was not granted. The 5/28/91 66-228 skating rink provided an outstanding service t~ the community and fe~s have not been waived. The waiver of fees was prohibited by the ballot measure; and the Council has said in order to be fair to e.veryone in the community, a waiver of tees would not be allowed. The City had spent enormous amounts of time on the project, and the City Attorney's office had spent ove.t' loa hOU1:S which 'Was a substantial investment of city funds. The project was excellent and valuable for the cQmmunity~ It was inappropriate, irrespective o! who the group Dlight be, to adopt a policy and then make distinctions between community groups and waive fees for some and not for others. Council MeJI1ber McCown queried the absence of authority in the Palo Alto Municipal Code {PA.v£) for the guidelines to follow, and ~hat would be involved if the council wanted to make an amendment. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the staff could com~ back vith an app~opriation to pay the fees out of reserves~ The staff was aware of the need to develop a ~echanism t~r what the Council has fro~ time to time characterized as public/private partnerships. Council Member Cobb understood the raquest was unique 'With the exception of CUbberley, since the difference vas the City would be the owner and operator of the facility. Neither the City Manager nor the City Attorney addresse~ that Epecific distinction~ )iI'..r. Zaner said the concern was the larger policy issue. The Y.M.C.A. collected money trom the community, provided a service, and assumed all the operational, maintenance, and capital CO$ts. The City had no cost i::'. beer. The Children's The~ter 'Would be owned by the city and maintenance and operation would be paid by the City. There was not a significant distinction between the project of the Friends of Children's Theater and the Y.M.C.A~ Service vas provided by both to the community and the community vas willing to pay for it. council Member Cobb queried whether it was possible to establish a policy Which could state the City could waive approval fees in situations where the City acquirea a substantial capital asset. Mr. Zaner said the Council could set any policy it cbose. He concurred with the city Attorney ana suggested a budget amendment as the direction to follow so as not to create a waiver policy. ~x~ calonne vanted to avoid hidden subsidies for th~ project at the expense of the other applicants wht:l \olould be paying the teas. council Kamber Cobb queried if Council acted in the direction of the budget amendment rather than the waiver approach, ~hether it would still make sense to establish a policy for making trans-ters so that qroups without a capital asset would not ~ encouraged to ask for the same kind of exceptions. 5/28/91 66-229 .. ------------~-~;~ '. Mr. Zaner recommended the Council not adopt a policy. Staff vas lookinq at the broad question of how to structure private/public partnerships and ~ould return to Council with a set of polici~s and part of tha policies would be fiscal policies. He ~ould discourage preempting these policies. He suggested the one-time budget amendment be made. Mayor Sutor ius clarified there was a fee fer the initial plannin9 p=ocess and queried 'Whp.ther there vO'.lld be additional .fees. It was i=portant to have an understar.ding of what a single action might signal. Mr. Zaner said there·would be additional fees. HOTION: Council Member Kniss moved: seconded by Fazzino, to appropriate th~ amount of S2,308 from the General Fund Reserves for a o-ne-til:1e grant for the fee requirer:I for the initial review process recognizing that the building will be owned by the City, on City land, and under the City's operations. council Kember Kniss believed there was e difference and public/priva~e partnerships should be encouraged. The Children's Theater was well established in the community in addition to being a pUblic/private partnership~ The waiver of the fee 1II'ould be a one-time opportunity and would not indicate it would be done in the future.. council MRmber Andersen said the issue went beyond the money. The group ~as doinq an extraordinary service for the community ~hich would benefit the public ant! the City~ The project was unique and wottle! likely be a precede.nt for the activities at the CUbberley site. He support~d the motion. He was interested in the comments by council Me=ber Cobb regarding the long-range issue of policies which might need to be established for public/private partnerships. Council Member Levy queried if there vas a City project, did the ci ty pay the fee for the review process or did the City pay the in~erdepartmental charges which were incurred. Mr. Zaner said a fee was not paid from one departm~~t to another except vhen the fee ~as cominq from the Utility O~partmentv there was a charge~ council Member Levy clarified if the City was building the facility, the City paid the expenses but not the fee. ~~ Zaner said that was correct. Council Kember Levy supported the motion. The facility represented full ownersnip and control by the City upon completion. The City Manager's comments 1II'ould come back to council because many worthwhile services in the City asked for a waiver of fees. The concept of full ownership and control was important. The city had spent millions or dollars en the Children's Theater. There 1II'ould 5/28/91 66-230 • • '" J ,/ " be more ~ees, ana the Child~en's Tbeater woula come back to Council and ask for a waiver of fees in the future. It ""~as not :his intent to do that. He 'Would 'Wait unt.il public/private pat"tnership pial". and policies were developed before granting any further .aivers. Council Member Renzel said there ~ere clear distinctions between the project and the other examples of o~ganizations and projects. There had been a long process of city policy making before the building pennit vas submit"t..ad. Other p:-cjects similar to the Children's Thp..ater lIIould not be plentiful. Cubberley \rr'as a possibility, but the extent of full ownership and control by the city 'Was unknown. The proj ect had been through a number. of app~oval processes. Future projects would be identified through the needs identification stage be!ore the decision to waive the fe.as .. Vice Mayor Fazzino said the pr.oject 'Was qualitatively d.ifferent from the other examples citea~ The facility ~as most ~~ique and extraordinary, and one of the most remarkable fundraising efforts in the city to provide a service to children.. The City owed it to donors and tundraisers to valve the fees and do whatever possible to move the project forward and make it become a reality. He encouraged a policy be Crafted with respect to similar projects. Council Member Woolley suqqested the addition to the motion of the words -u.."lder the direct administration of the City upon comple­ tion.- IIAXll!l l\!Il) SECONDI':R AGREE!> '1'0 DlCORPORATI' INTO TIlE HOTIOIl TIlE AnDXnO. OF nAND DIUei' ADKI:!lISTRJ.TrON UPON COMPLETION,." AnER UNDER ~ crrr's OPERA~iONS. Co~il Member McCown concurred with Council Member Woolley regardinq the distinction between tl1e cxamples~ The City Hana.qer's role was to point out that the council might not be able to distinguish requests. She believed it ~ould be better to look at it as a policy matter and decioe whether something dif~erent would be done for ether projects rather than on an ad hoc basis. She did not support the request~ Kr~ Zaner said the wild Life Rescue qroup would be coming before council wi~~ a proposal to con5t~ct a ~~ilding for the city on city land and the price would be higher than the amount requested by the Fr iends. council Member McCown said a policy might treat all situations in the same ~ay as the Children's Theater, i.8.~ the city's contribu­ tion to the projects would be equal to the valUe of the ~ee3 which was not done on the Gamble Gardens. The ad hoc basis was the wrong way to do it. Mayor Sutorius said the people involved in Gamble Gard2Tjs and the Rhona Willia~5' home ~ould be watching the process. The process 5/2Sln 66-231 -- • ,'. :""". " --_'>A- VBS on an ad hoc basis. He believed a policy should be set first~ Be would not support the motion. Vice Mayor Fazzino believed there was a difference between the Rhonda Williams~ house, which might be operated by another qroup, because it was not a City service or directed by city administra­ tors. The project was no different than a group coming forward vith an offer to bl.!ild a new facility. The City voule! not be directly responsible for the administration of Wild Life Rescue. He supported the motion. Council M~mber Renzel supported the motion because the city would build the facility if the money was available. Council Kember Cobb queried how soon the tee had to be paid and whether the tee could be set aside until the policy questions were dealt with. He would like to establish a policy aleng the lines discussed with appropriate constraints and descriptions. Kr~ Zaner urqed the Council not to postpone the decision. The policy issue was im~?rtant but net a top priority at the time. If the Council wanted to make the payment, he suggested not to hold it up ~or tbe policy issue~ When the work :began on the CUbberley project" there 'Would be time to work on the policy and then return to council. Council Kember Andersen said the appropriate timE to aeal with the policy _ould be when staff returned to Council with recommendations an the CUbberley publ':.:./pri-,·ate partnerships~ HtY.l"IOlI' ~ASSED 7-2, McCown, Sutorius "no." ~~SS! 10;00 P.M. TO 10:15 P.H. 10. Greer Park Skateboard Facilit.y (1321-13J (CKR!26S!91.) Recreation Superintendent Anne Cribbs said staff had been working with the skaters since February 1991~ She introduced Recreation Supervi~or Dave Brees, who would be working with the skaters.durinq the next several months. Council Member Cobb queried the cost of full-time supervision for the facility .. Ms. Cribbs said the cost ~as $175 per day, Monday tr.rough Friday, and $240 per day, Saturday and Sunaay_ Council Member cobb queried whether the equipment rental concession would recapture some of the expenditures. Ms. Cribbs &a.id a minimal aill.ount of the expenditures would be recaptured. 5/28/91 £6-232 ,- .. ~/ . -... . . ;._-J4:J?