Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0598.093December 9; 1993 HONO~~LE CITY COUN~IL Palo Alto. California Adoption of City Policies Regarding .E.l1blic/Private Partnershios and Fee Wa.ivers MembErs of the Council: RePOrt in Brief < '':''' ':..: .. . This report responds to an April 5, 1992 Council assignment to st.aff to develop a policy rega.rding facilitation of publici private partnerships ~~d an ordinance waiving fees for certain projects (see attached 4/2/92 memOrand\lm). .~ recommended Policy Statement and Fee Waiver Ordinance a~e attached. Work on this assignment. identified closely related issues involv-ing City co­ sponsorship of events and Police Department 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 report. Staff recommends that this report. along with the forthcoming staff report on a proposed Co-sponsorship Policy ana Police Department fees I be referred to the Policy and Services committee for review in early 1994. Policy to £pcoura3e and Facilitate Partnerships Tl"-.. e ac.tached Public/Private Partnerships policy, if adopted, '~uld establish a City Council policy to encourage the development of public-private partnerships. !n carrying out 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. City promotion of partnerships could range from co-sponsorship of activities to solicitation of propoaals to facilitation of proposals through th~ City review process. The C~ty Manager has established a staff Public/Private Partnership COM1Tlittee that would facil~tate review and decision making on both proposals received from outside the City organization and concepts identified by City om,S9S,93 · -j'" ". staff. Forrnat.ion of the Committee is in response to the need to understand and facilitate interactions hetween the publi~ and private sectors. One rele·,la::t work area is to see t.hat potential partnerships receive a coordi~ated multi-dapartmect response 3nd ti~ely decision ma~ing. The attao::hed policy does not address co-spcnsorship of activities and Pcl~ce D~partment fe~s. The complexity and importance of co­ sponsorship has resulted in staff undertaking work en a separate CO-Eponsorship Pol icy statement that, alc:19 · ... ·ith recommendations on Police Department fees, will be forwarded to the Cou~cil in a separate staff report. Waiver of City Fees The attached policy identifies an approach tQ waiver of City fees that is based partially on the Children's Theater expansion project (see attached excerpt of May 28, 1991 Council minutes). Any ..... aiver of fees ,""ould nee.d to be approved by the City CO\.lncil. The Council would have authority to waive fees only for construction or capital projects which, upon completion. l.·esult in a neioll or improved public facility, building or park t.hat 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 faci.lity, the waiver of fees wo~ld 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 ordinar.ce amending Section 1.08.110 [Fees} of the Municipal Code. The recommended fee .... aiver procedure is narrowly drawn, out of concern that a more flexible approach (e.g .• potentially .... aiving fees for npuhlic services" or ~public facilities~) would open the City to many fee waiver requests from nonprofit and for-profit organizations providing what they perceive to be a public ser~ice (e.g., recreational, tnedical or social service providers}. This approach forces Council to made decisions on a more subjective basis and may have the potential for conflict. of interest due to the: number of o'?nprofit agencies receiving direct and indirect City assistance. ~~vironmental Revie~ Adoption of the attached policy and ordina.~ce amending the F.ees section of the Municipal Code is not a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and no environmental review or finding is necessary. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council refer the attached PubliC/Private Partnership Policy and the attached ordinance 12/9/93 Page 2 amending Secti::>n 1.09.110 [Fees] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to the Policy and Services Committee. Respectfully submit.ted. -;t£/.A.a:/t X'/ -ld/Mh:y KENNETH R. SCHP~lBER ' Director of planning and Community Environment i _ (\1)/11.1 ~U/r"WY.,.,. JUNE FLEMING City Manager /: '.~,(,,<".L: /.' ~\,fl C" E -LY ~ISON - Di rector of Finance- Attachments: Public/Private Partnership Policy Ordinance April 2, .1.932 Memo:r:andum Excerpt of the May 28. 1991 Council Minutes =,598,93 12/9/93 Page 3 PqaLIC/PRtyATE PARTNERSHIPS POLICY STA1EM?NT It is thf! policy of the City of palo Alto to encourage the devt:;lopment of public/private partnerships. A public/private partnership is defined as cooperation be:ween the private sector or nonprofit organizaticns and t.he City in providing services. facilities or other capital projects to the community. Public/private partnerships may take different forms. Tw':::, of the most COLTlmon include: • Cooperat~ve partnerships: This approach assumes cooperat~on ber.ween the pubLic and pl:'ivate or n·onprofit sectljrs in order to achieve mutually shared objectives. Examples include construction of the expansion to the Children's Theatr~i the City's relationship with the Senior Center and the Palo Alto Housing Ccrporation; ~~d the Economic OUtlook Committee. • Inducements: In this approach, the City struct.ures incentives that change the market environment in which the private sector operates in order to achieve social goals. Examples include the PARTNERS progl:am in the Utilities Department; and the 250 Uni .... ersity Avenue development, in which increased square footage and relaxed height restrictions 'Were exchanged by the City for public parking and dedicated alley improvements. CITY ROLE IN PARTNERSHIP FOPJ1ATION Tbe City has historically acted primarily as a passive recipient of proposals for p~blic/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: • Facilitation of proposals through the City'S regulatory process (e.g. 250 University); • SOlicitation of proposals for public/private ventures {e.g. Tower Well site, Chuck Thompson site) j • WaiVer of fees by the city Council for construction of facilities to be owned, or controlled. and operated by the City (e.g. Children's Theatre); Page 1. • Use of fac:ilit.ies/suhsidi zed rent {e. g. Cubberleyl Propcsa.ls for a public/privCit.e partnel.·ship opportunity are ncrmally received by City staff from private sector cr-nonprcfit. organizations. They may also be :refe.r:-ed by the City CO·.l!'1c:ii t-o staff for review and recQmmendatlon. An important ccnponent for facilit.ating publ ic/pri 'late partnerships is the ability of the City t.o react quickly an.:3 comprehensively to a proposal+ Also of importance for some propcsals is the impact Clf City processir.g fees. The follo',Oo'ing procedu~es establish a rnechanisrr, t.o obt.ain. prompt and ccmpre­ hensive initial City review of a ~roposal and consider·ation of r~quests for waiving City fees. F"..lhlic/Priva.te Camrr,ittee; A fubl ie/Private Rev~ew Committee shall be appointed by the City Manage~, with representation fro~ the Police .. Fire, Public Works, Community services, Planning and Financ:e Depart.ments, ae well a.s the City Attorney'.s 8:tfJ.c2. _~ appropriate, st.aff from other departrroent.13 ·who a.re involyed in a public/private proposal may also participate on t}-i.e Com1T,it.tee. The Commit.t.ee shall be chaired by t.he City Manager or his/her designee. The Committee shall meet as.: required to revi.ew p'.lblic/private proposals r but no less than quarterly_ Pres and cons of a proposal will be ident.ifi!?d and discussed. 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 t.he City should participate. The summary and recommendation to the Cj ty Council will be prepared whether or not the City staff support the proposal as a publi~/private partnership. Fee Waiver: The Public/private Committee may recommend .. as part of its review of a proposal, that allY normal City processing or use fees under the Mu...,i.cipal Pee Schedule I not including fees and charges levied by City of Palo Alto utilities, be waived as a part of the City's participation in app:ropriate pub 1 ie/private partnerships. Waiver of fees shall be by the City Council and limited to those fees associated .... ith a construction or eapit<>.l project which, upon its completion, results in a new or improved public facility, building or park, or some portion thereof, that ..... ill b~ solely owned or controlled by the City. In the event that only some portion of a constr ... ction or capital project will result in a new or improved City facility, building or pa~k, or some portion thereof. then the City Council may only waive that portion of any associated fees directly ~elating to the construction, improvement or enhancement of the Cit.y facility. building or paTk. If appropriate, the summary and recommendation report to the City Council will include a recommendation on waiving fees, and the Council can approve or deny the waiver recommenaed by staff. Page :;;: ORDINANCE NO. ORDINAN'CE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 1.08 [VIOLATIONS] OF THE PALO ALTO MD~ICIPAL CODE TD PROVIDE AUTHORITY FOR WAIVERS OF FEES UNDER THE MUNlCIPAL rEE SCHEDULE FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS WHICH BENEFIT THE CITY The Coul!cil of the City cf Palo .lUto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 1.08.110 [Fees] of L.he Palo lUto Municipal Code is f1.ereby amended to reiid as fo] lows: 1.08.110 Pees for licenses~ pennils,. services~ etc.; use of city facility or service. (a) The city ma.nagp.r shall establish a schedule of fees and rates for all q,-pes of services performed by city depart!I~nts under fl4.e-the IIiana:ger~s control, except utility rates and charges; admissions j golf course fees and nonresident library fees, to be set forth in a document to be known as the ·municipal fee schedule ft • Such document shal! 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 req~est. (b} Any change in any fee established by the city manager shall become effective upon commencem~nt of the thirty-fizst day following notice sent to the coun:il, except fees established pursuant to an emergency ordinance of the city council~ or fees changed by the city council after such notice. If any fee is changed try the city council by motion action, in such case said changed fee shall be effective on the next weekday following such council action, or at such other time £pecified by th€ council. (c: >., ~9=Pt as,,, p~OVid~~ ill subsection td) of" this S_~~!,,':,,~:t; ~ f:Jha11,,"be' unla~fi.ll ""for' any person to use"" any" 'city facility or service without paying the prescribed fee or charge therefor. (d) "NOt;:wltbstiuldlng"sUbsact:ion (c} of, this section, the {'ity 'council ma.:yl in its discretion .. w:aive any" af the re~s set for.th: in :t:he mpnicipal fee Eichedlf1e t.hat wo'.lld apply :tb ,a p~ivate, prqject to construct., ~ove or otherw'ise enhaf.ce a n~ or exist.ing public facility~ buil.d$.ng or park. A :cOnstruction or capital project eligible for such fee "daiver mlist result in a new or improved public facility~ building or park, or some portion'thereof .. that will be solely owned or controlled by'the city upon the project1a completion. In the event that only some portiOD of a construction or capital project will result in a new or improved city facility~ 1 - boilding or park, or some portion ttlereof ~ then the city council may only waive those portions of any associated fees l cn a pro rata bas1s~ that directly relate to the construction.. improvement or enhancemeI.;.t of the city facilityz building or park. +e+-<ei The finance aRe I9l::1elie .8_Ls comrni ttee rnay review any fee in the municipal fee schedule during the ann~al budget review process. SECTiON :2. ordinance is not a Environmental Qual i ty The City project Act. Council hereby for purpos~s of finds the that this California SECTION 3. Thi~ ordinance shall become effecti ve upor~ t.he commencement of the thirty-first day after the dilt~ of its pass3.ge. INTRODUCED, PASSED, NOES, ABSENT, ABSTENTIONS, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, Senior .:a.sst. Ci ty Attorney 2 APPROVED. Mayor City ~ager Dir~ctor of Finance Director of Planning and Community Environment Director of Public Works Director of Conununity Services DATE: April 2, 1992 Office (;f tile. Otj' C'Ju!'lC1l ME .r..l 0 RAN D U t\! TO: Our COl.:.nc~1 CO!le;:;.gues FROM: Co:.mcil Members McCO'.Ion, Huber, (lr.J Cobb SUBJECT: PublicjPrh'zre P<lrtne[sJ'lips <lnd Fee Waivers -..:= Last year, the City Council2pproved a request from the Friencs. of the Childr.en's Theatre to waive certain City applicnri':)o/pcrm;! fees; in cOl'l:1ecr:on \dth the Ch!id'ren's TbeJ.tre expansion. LOnCe'1l ll.'as expressed by some Counc;j ~·1em~er5 that poh)' guiddir.es ne~ded to be developed so {hal we would not be f<lced 'oI.'ith <ld noc requests (and T!!SpOnses), particularly given the fact LhJ.t the:;"! ty pe:; of ·pu.hIic/priv:.l1e pi.!rtr.ersh:ps~ .are something the Cit'j \ .... ill waIH to encot,;rage in the flJ[~'re. Rece;H coaespondence from the Palo Aho Recreation Foundation re Cubbt:'rley and pre\iiou:; cmre::sponder.ce feCi-a the Standing Committee on the NLS (attached) illustrate.s t!le commun~fy's cor,tinued ~nteies: in thi.!.· subject If public/private partnerships are to be a u~ful p<lr! of our Ci!y's fu:tJ.:re, '~,'e :sho~ld LJ'to avoid unnecessary impediments 10 people getting invol ... ·ed, whether through tteir time or money or Do!h. lfwe can put in place.a process that fa;:ilita{e~ thes-e efforts, we might also make them mOie Iike!y to occur. Senior l!lanagement staff has alre:ldy begu n to discu:.s-how such public/private pan.nershi.ps can be encouraged and fadiitaled. and It-!e City Arrorney's cff;ce has gi .... en thought to now fee waiv:;:;s might be z-ccornmadatea thwlJgh ord~nJnce ch<Jrlges. Accordingly, we wil! move that the Council direct sraf(to: 1. Draft policy guidelines, to be implemented in ordinar,ce form ~s appropriate, to permit \vai .... er of City permit/application fees for projects which meet the crjter[~ p';'esenl in tile-Chlld.en's Theatre sit'!.lution, Le., provision of private funds/serv'lces to m:Jke capital [mproveme:nts to a City facility which will contiilue to be owned and openlted as p~r~ of City programs; and 2. Report to Ihe City Council reg;.lI'ding other appro.CJ.ches the City might take 10 encourage and fLicilimle commur.ity conirihulion to and paniciparion in public-private p~Jr[ner5hips. to JTj<.ilI'ltJ.;n and improve community:filcilities, services and progr;;tn1s. Attachment -:~- -, ' Council He~r Ren~el said based on the number ~! calls, it did not seem to be a problem which required 5 ban on alcohol at El C~mino Park. Sbe aqreed with the safety concerns raised with respect to the skateboard facility. KO'l'IOH 'III'1'HDJ\AIIH BY KAXn AIIIl SECONDER. Council Member McCown said staff had been instructe~ to prepa~~ an ordinance and return to Ccuncl1. In the future when there was an issue where research and analys.is 'Was. required from staff to evaluate whether to proceed in a ~ertain direction, Council should direct staff to return 'With the staff report fit'"st and then if COl,l,ncil believed an ordinance 'Was appropriate d.irect thelro to proc~ed. Tha amount of time spent could have been avoided if the policy-information 'lias presented. first rather than after the ordinance process. No action taken. REPORtS OF OFFICIALS 9. Request of (CMR:2S8:91) Frie:lds of Children's Theater ( 1304-01) Susan ste'Wart, 1550 Middlefield Road~ Board Member of th~ Friends of Children's Theater l clarified the Board was justified in asking ~or a waiver of the fee because the project was different than any other project the city had done in co~peration 'With a qroup. The waiver vas not being asked for on behalf of the Frien~s because the building .. as not a building for the Friends or fot'" use by the Friends I but was a building tor the City of Palo Alto.. It 'Was different than a prcject for the Gamble Garden.. The City would be given a major capital improvem~nt Which would be controlled by the City. The Friends WOuld have no interest in it. The value of the add';: .::ion vas estimated between $500,000 to $6~O, 000. Since the p~~ject was worth over $500,000, financed with private funds, was ~dertaken solely for the benefit of the City, and would be under the City's full control upon completion, the fee assessed for the project should be 'Waived. The Council should encourage their efforts. Carl ('ilIespie, 4142 Amaranta Court, President of Friends of the Child::enrs Theater, conc.urred with Ms .. Stewart and ... as disappointed in the staff report CCMR:29B~91). The City had been asked to ~aive the fees. The organization was past the haIr-way point in the amount of 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 willing 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 vaived for a major gift to Palo Alto. 5/28/91 66-227 -'-,-- f Patty Hoagland MCEWen~ 753 Garland Drive~ M~rnber on the Board of Directors of the F~iends ~f the children's Theater~ had maintained interest and slJPport ot the Children' 5 Theater for many years. The program had expanded during that time~ but the facility was bursting at the seams. The Friends had decided t·'J build an addition to the Children's Theater, ~hich would enable the staff and the program to accommodate all the child~en. The Friends have raised approxiI:lately $400,000.. The approval process .. as started because as new grant appl ications were sent out, it ",ould :be important to have the City's approval and waiving of the fees would show that support.. They understood the difficult position the City was in 4 but the support would be appreciated by hundreds at people4 Laura Selznick , 3451 Waverley Street, President-elect of Friends of the Chilartl!l1:s Theater, said the City's fees connected ... ith the approval of the plans affected the Children's Theater and would also affect the construction of CUbberley, Which would be the only si:l:!dlar policy that might come :before the council. The Council .could draft a policy whjch would be narroW' enough to help the projects the City wanted to help and support those partnerships which would save money and enhance facilities~ The criterion for the policy could be that the City \o'Quld own the facility when completed# staffing and maintenance paid by the CitYJ construction 'Would be under City quid.elin-es and "Would cost over $1 million dollars -which would be raised by the citizens, and the City would not pay the cost of construction or the management of cO:-. .3truc"t.ion. The City Vas the homeowner of the building and was paying zero tor the building. She urged the Co~ncil not to focus on the bottom lin~4 council Member McCown queried the procedure followed for work being done on a City building4 City Manager Sill Zaner said if there were charges between funds, the City did charqe. In addition, all projects paid the usual overhead charges which amounted to charges bet\o'een departments, Le., Do project done in the Public Works Department carried an overhead which inc1udad time spent by the City Attorney,. City Manaqer, and Finance Department. Council Member McCown queried the prior requests to waive fees. :Mr. Zaner said the staff supported tbe project4 His recommendation vas based on What might happen in the future and actions in ~~e past Which had nothing to do with the project and was a matter of policy. There had been requests to waive fees from almost every aqency to wbom money was qiven under community Development Block Grant (CDBGJ for construction projects which was not qiven. He reee.T~tly turned doW'll the request from t..~e Y4M.C.A. for red.uction C't fees for their environme.ntal impact report~ Gamble Garden asked for a waiver of fees on a number of items which was not given. When the storm Drain Utility was approve~, there were a number of orqanizations who asked for relief which was not granted. The 5/28/91 <66-228 .: .. "" skating rink provided an outstanding service t.o the cOmJ:mnity and fees have not been waive~. 1he ~aiver of tees ~&S prohibite~ by the ballot measure; and the Council has said in order to be fai~ to everyone in the community, a ~aiver of fges would not be alloweQ. The City had spent enormous amounts of time on the project, and the City Attorneyts office haQ spent ove:r 100 hours which was a substantial investment of City !unQs. The project was excellent and valuable f01: the community. It 'Was inappr-opriate, irrespective of who the group might be, to .l!.dopt a policy and then -make distinctions between community 9ro~ps and waive fees tor SODe and not for others. council Member McCown qlJ.eried the absence of autho~ity in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (FAMe) tor the guicelines to fellow,. a.nd "hat would be involved if the council wanted to make an amendment. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the staff CQuld come back with an appropriation to pay the fees Qut cf reservcs~ The staff was aware of the nee~ to develop a ~echanisD fo~ what the council has trom time to ti~e characterized as public/private partnerships. Council Member Cobb understood the request was unique vi th the exception ot CUbbe~ley~ since the difterence was the City would be the owner and operator of the faCility. Neither the City Manager nor the city Io.ttorney addressed. that specitic di.3tinction~ P.r. Zaner said the CQnCBrn 'Was t.he ~arger policy issue. The Y.M.C.A. collected ~oney from the community, provided a sarvice, and assumed all the operational, maintenances and capital costs. The city had no cost ".:. bear. The Children's Theater would be owned by thg city and maintenance and operation vould be paid by the City. There was not is significant distinction betveen the project of the Friends ot Children's Theater and the 'i.M.C.A. Service was provided by both to the community and the c~unity was willing to pay tor it~ counci1 Member Cobb queried whe~~er it was possible to establish a policy which could state the city cculd waive approval fees in situations where the City acquired a substantial capital asset. Hr. Zaner said the Ccuncil could set any policy it cho!:>e. He concurrQd with the city Attorney and s~ggested a budget amendment a.s the direction to follow so as not to create a w~iver policy. Mr. Calonne ~anted to avoid hidQen subsidies for the project at the expense of the other applicants who would be paying the fees. council Kember Cobb queried if Council acted in the direction of the budget amendment rather than the waiver approach, whether it would still make sense to establish a policy for making transfers so that qroups vithout a capital asset would not be encouraged to ask for the same kinQ of exceptions. 5/28/91 -"........,._e' __ .... -.e ____ _ · . Mr~ zaner reco:nme.nded t.he Council not adopt ,,_ policy. staff waS looking at thP.. broad quest.ion of how to structlJre private/public partnerships and would return to council with a set of policies and part ot the policies would be fiscal policies. He would discourage preelUptinq those policies. He suggest.ed the one-time budget amendment be made~ M~yor Su~orius clarified there was a fe9 for ~he initial planning process and queried whether there would be additional fees. It was important to have an understanding of what a single action might signal. Mr. Zaner said there would be additional fees. MOTlON: Cov.ncil Member Y.niss Il'I~ved, seconded by Fazzino, to appropriate the amount of $2,308 from the General Fund Reserv~s for a one-time grant for the fee required for the initial review process recognizing that the building will be owned by th~ city. on city land, and under the City's operatione. council Me:nber :Kniss boelieve~ the-.re was a difference and public/private partnerships should be encouraged. The Children's Theater was well established in the commur.ity in add,ition to being a public/private partn2rshjp. The waiver of the fee would be a one-time opportunity and would not indicate it would be done in the future. council Member Andersen said the issue went beyond the money. The group 'Was doing an extraordinary service for the community wt,ich would ben~fit the public and the City~ The project was unique and would likely be a precedent for the activities at the CUbberley site. He sup~rted the motion. He was interested in the comments by council Member Cobb regarding the long-ran~e issue of poliCies vhich might need to be established for public/private partnerships. Council Kember Levy queried if there was a City project, did the City pay the fee tor the review process or did the City pay the interdepartmental charges Which were incurred. Mr. Zaner said a fee was not paid from one department to another except when the fee was coming from the Utility Department, there wa s a charge. Council Member Levy clarified if the City was building the facility, the city paid the expense$ but not th£ fee. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. council Member Levy supported the iJlotion. The facility represented full ownership and control by the city upon completion. The City Hanaqer 1 s comments would come back to council because many worthwhile services in the city asked for a waiver of ~ees. The concept of full ownership and control was important. The City had spent ~illions of collars on the Children's Theater~ There WOuld 5/28/91 66-230 ,.'," ; " ;0.' - . , ;< .". ·'." be more tees, and the Children's Theater would come back to Council ana ask for a waiver of fees in the future. !t was not his intent to do that. He would wait until public/private partnership plan and policie.s. were developed before granting any f'.lrthet 'Waivers. Council Member Renzel said there ve~e clear distinctions between the prcjec~ and the othe~ examples of organizations and projects. There had been a long process of City policy -making befcre the buildinq permit was s.ubmitted. et.her projects similar to the Children's Theate.r vould not Doe plentifl..ll. Cubberley was a possibility, but the extent of full ownership and cont~ol by the cit.y "as unknown. The project had been through a nu-mber of approval processes. Future projects would be identitied through the needs identification 9tage before the decision to waive L~e tees. Vice Mayor Fazzino said the project was qualitatively different trom the other examples cited. The facility was mos~ unique and extrao~dinaryl and one of the most remarkable fur.drai~ing efforts in the city to provide a service to children. The City owed it ,to donors and fundraisers to "Waive the fees and do TJ.'hatever possible to move the project fonrard and make it become a reality. He encouraged a policy be drafted with respect to similar projects. Council Member Wooliey suqqested the addition to the motion of the words "under the direct administration of the city upon comple­ tion.- JIJUtD AIID SECOIft)EB. AGIISED TO II/CORPORATE XII'l'O Tl!E KOTXOIi TIlE Al>Dl"TI.OII 0" "HAND DIREC!' AI»lI:NI:BTRAT:IOlf UPON CO"'PLS"'I'IO.,~' APTER ONDER TBZ CITY'S OPeRATIONS. council Member McCo.~ concurred with Council Member Woolley regarding the distinction between the example.s. The City Manager's role was to point out that the council might not be a:ble to distinguish requests. She believed it would be better to 100k at it as a policy ~atter and decida whether something different would be done for other projects rather than on an ad hoc basis. She aid net support the request. Mr. Zaner said the wild Life Rescue group would be coming before counci1 with a proposa1 to construct a building for the city on City land and the price would be higher than the amount requested by the Friends. Council Member McCown said a policy might treat all situations in the same way as the Children's Theater, i.e.~ the City's contribu­ tion to the projects would be equal to the value of the fees which was not done on the Gamble Gardens. The ad hoc basis was the wronQ way to do it. - Mayor Sutor ius said the people involved in Gamble Gardens and the Rhona Williams' home would be w~tching the process. The process 5/28/91 66-231 ~.. .-........-.---------._--- , - was on an ad hoc ~sis. He belie;re:d a pollcy should he set first. He ~ould ~ot support the motio~~ Vice Mayor Fazzino believed there .. as a difference between the Rhonda williams' house, which eight be operated by another group, because it was not a City service or directed by City administra­ tors. The project was no different than a group coming forward with an offer to build a new facility. The City ,",ould not be directly re~ponsible for the administration of wild Life Rescue. He supported the motion~ council Kember Renzel supported the motion because the city would build the facility if the money was available. Co~cil Me~ber Cobb queried ho~ soon the fee had to be paid and whether the fee could be set aside until the policy questions were dealt with. He ~ould like to es~ablish a policy along the lines discussed with appropriate constraints and descriptions. Mr. Zaner urged the council not toO postpone the decision. The policy issue was important but not a top priority at the time. If the Council wanted to make the payment, he suggested not to held it up ~or the policy issue. When the wor-k began on the Cubberley project, there would be time to work on the policy and then return to council. Council Member Andersen said the appropriate time to deal with the policy would be when staff returned to Council with recommendaticns on the CUbberley publ":.:./pri-, =.te partnerships. MOTION :ASSBD 7-2, McCown r Sutorius "no.- 2ECtSS: 10;00 P.M. TO 10:15 P.M. 10. Greer Park Skateboard Facility (1321-13J (CMR:265:91) RecrEation Superint~ndent Anne Cribbs said staff had been workinq with the skaters since February 1991. She introduced Rec~eation Supervisor Dave Brees., who wculd be 'Wor:!<.inq ...... ith the skaters during the next several months. Council He1!1ber Cobb querie.d. the cost of full-time supervision for the faci.lity. Ms. Cribbs said the cost was $175 per day. Monday through Friday. and $240 per day, Saturday and Sunday. Council Member Cobb queried whether 'the equipment rental concession would recapture &Ollle of the expenditures. H&. Cribbs said a minimal amount o-t the expe.nditures would be recaptured • 5/28/91 66-232 ---~~-"7------