HomeMy WebLinkAbout0335.095' ..
P
'3
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
CITY MANAGER
July'.199S
DEPARTMENT: City Manager
CMR:135:95
SUBJECT: Assignment Regarding Community Senitts Conunission
ltEOUEST
This is an informatiorull item; no Council action is requested.
JIECOMMENDADONS
~ BR DO recommenda.nons for the City COUncIl 10 consider. al Ihls time.
!i:XEQ!J'IYE SJ !MMAl!.y
The issue of esIlIbfishing I Community Services COmmissiOll arose during the Hughes Heiss
0rpnizaII0naI Re\iew. Staff, in response Ii) the reorganization, indicated support of the
coocept. Ia Slaffl final report 10 CoullCif l recommend.non was made 10 pursue the
esIlIbliahmenl of sua a commission. Council', Policy and Servkes Committee
~ suppo<1 for the Community Services Commission. wbile acknowledging the
need for further consideration. Ia presenting the recommendation \0 the full Council, the
CAmmittee chair suggested that the. Policy and Services Committee and communil)'
organiza6ons sbouId be involved as the proposal is further developed. The City ManJlgec
confirmed thai would be the process. The Council voled \0 awove the recommendation
10 creaIe • Community Services Commission, noIing thaI there would be further 4'lSCUSSioo
by the Council at the lime the tinal proposal returned Ii) them for appt"Oval.
Ia preparing the report on the specifics of I Community Services Commission. staff has
begun • review of the existing beards and commissions IS • basis for comparison. III the
process. otaff has disrovered • subSlanti.al inconsistency among the e';sting beards and
commissions regarding areas such as charges 10 those bodies. staff support, funding support
and composition. There has been 00 recent review of these issues for the multiplicity of
e.Jstin8 bodies. Therefore, J have decided thaI it is best 10 delay the returl of •
reoommendalion 00 the Community Service. Commission D Dill staff has completed an
analysis of the existing bodies. The analysis will nol be I definitive one. 001 an invenlory
of what uists DOW. comparing such BRas as the roles. cbarge, staffing support, funding
support, meeting frequency. ele. The analysis will not involve reviewing such areas ""
.... 1.0
.
.----"-, .!-
o
effedlvellOU ol the bodleI and how the)' opente. Since such an analysis 1>u not been
c:omplc!ood in recenI yean. it may take considerable time 10 make the review m=Ungful and
useful in me fiIIai recommeodalion rega.!"lf:ng • Community Services c-mission. SId
alllicipalea c:ompIctioo olthe wocl<: by the end olthe year.
A relaled issue is thai recently members ol • few olthe uisting boards and commissioru
have expreosed COIICenl! 10 me aboL-t the level d slaff support and funding they are
currently receiving. J .... ould DOt want 10 proceed with • recoinmendatioo 10 Council 10
es!abIisII • new commission, wheft we may have inequities in the present SUpporIlevel and
indeed may DOt be able 10 support funber volunlcer commissions.
Unleas there is other cfuectioo from Council, staff will not re~Jlll in September u planned
with • rerommendatioll "0 the c-murJty Services Commission, but will delay that report
lIOtillhe staff ana!ysjs is complete on the existing boards and commissioru.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fis<:aI impact related 10 this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSf'SSMF.NT
No environmen!al ...... meot i. required.
PREPARED BY: 11l/le Fleming. City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
: .....
'.:: .