Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/1998, 2 - CONSIDERATION OF TYPES OF COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS46 council acenaa nepoM C I T Y OF S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer Prepared By: Wendy George, Assistant to the City Administrative Officer W�r SUBJECT: Consideration of Types of Community Partnerships CAO RECOMMENDATION M..ft D� � 1-13 - � 09 1. Consider a report on various types of Community Partnerships and on the pilot partnership with Friends of Las Casas de Adobe. 2. Direct staff to return to Council with a Community Partnership Policy which addresses 1) establishing partnerships for specific City- related projects and 2) the formation of a Parks and Recreation foundation. REPORT -IN-BRIEF In order to gather information for developing a policy on community partnerships, staff surveyed a number of cities in California. Based on the survey information, it appears that the many types of partnerships in existence can be divided into four basic groups: Community foundations, collaborations to provide social services, partnerships to support specific projects and city foundations. The City's pilot relationship with Friends of Las Casas de Adobe is a successful example of a partnership to support a specific project and will provide good guidance in developing the partnership policy. After considering the pros and cons of the four types of partnerships, staff recommends including in the policy partnerships to support specific projects and a City Parks and Recreation foundation. The advantages to the City and community by forming the recommended partnerships are significant. However, there are downsides to both these types of partnerships, as well. The most negative of these is that a City foundation could possibly compete with other non -profit organizations for the same dollars. Staff believes that this competition will be significantly reduced by limiting the purpose of the foundation to allowing the enhancement of recreation programs by participants, the seeking of grants for program scholarships and the contribution of enhancements to City parks. Staff does not recommend including a community foundation or collaborations to provide social services in the policy. Community foundations usually serve broader geographic areas than a single city and have separate boards of directors. There is currently a movement in place to establish such a foundation in this county. Providing broad -scale social services is not the traditional focus of the City's efforts and is better left to the County of San Luis Obispo. The City has historically viewed itself as a catalyst for community well- being, not as a provider of direct services. DISCUSSION Background Over the past decade it has become apparent that there are many activities or needs which are of concern to the City or its citizens, but cannot be addressed directly due to limitations on the City's J-/ Council Agenda Report - Community Partnerships Page 2 financial resources. As far back as 1989, the Council recognized that an excellent way to stretch those resources, and create opportunities to approach projects or programs which might be considered community enhancements rather than fundamentals, was to tap into the volunteer resources of the community. At that time, the Council established a work program directed toward encouraging and providing leadership for community fund raising and volunteer efforts to accomplish civic programs and projects. A similar, but more clearly defined goal, "to encourage partnerships with non -profit organizations for the mutual benefit of both the City and the organizations ", was approved as part of the 1997 -99 Financial Plan. In considering the current goal on community partnerships, the Council recognized that the possibilities for such partnerships and foundations are wide- ranging and could also create competition with other local non -profit agencies. Therefore, in order to develop procedures for establishing them in a well-defined, logical way, based on a full understanding of the implications involved, staff was directed to acquire information from other governmental agencies on similar programs prior to establishing a City policy. At the same time, as one of the action steps of the Community Partnerships goal, Council agreed to create a pilot partnership with an organization called Friends of Las Casas de Adobe (FOCA), which was being formed by community members to assist with the restoration of three Mexican era adobes owned by the City. It was hoped that information gained from setting up the pilot program would also be helpful in developing a community partnership policy. Results of Community Partnerships Survey In an attempt to discover which cities participated in community partnerships, staff contacted the League of California Cities, searched the Internet and telephoned neighboring cities, as well as the cities which have been selected as comparable to San Luis Obispo for salary comparison purposes. After developing the list of cities to be surveyed, staff called and requested the following information: • Does the city have any type of community partnership(s), and if so, what type? • What is the purpose of the partnership? • What level of support is provided by the city? • Has the city council provided formal recognition of the partnership? The results of the survey found that, as expected, there was a wide range of activities occurring in communities which could be considered "community partnerships ". After looking for common factors, however, staff felt that these activities could be placed into four broad categories as follows: Commun& foundations: Community 'foundations are generally regional in scope and are administered by a board of directors. They are set up as vehicles for citizens of the region to make tax - deductible contributions to an organization which will then grant those funds to local agencies or projects. Types of recipients usually include human services agencies, cultural organizations and educational institutions, similar to the recipients of the City of San Luis Obispo's Promotional Coordinating Committee and Human Relations Committee grants. In all cases surveyed, the community foundations are completely separate entities from those cities in the area served by the foundations. Collaborations to provide social services: A number of cities have formed collaborations with other public agencies, such as school districts, social services organizations like the YMCA or Salvation Army, or citizen groups, such as neighborhood organizations, to address areas of social concern usually related to the needs of the young or the elderly. In all cases, the CA "v;� Council Agenda Report - Community Partnerships Page 3 collaboration was developed as an attempt to address a significant problem which had been perceived within the community. The level of city involvement in these collaborations ranged from serving as a catalyst or "convener" to providing significant funding and management. Our City has entered into similar collaborations with the Homeless Shelter and Prado Day Center. Partnerships to support specific pro'e� cts: The largest group of partnerships were those that arose to support specific projects. Several cities have "adopt -a- park" programs or have developed partnerships to manage program activities such as recreation or nature centers. These projects are clearly defined and are usually the result of a formally adopted agreement between the city and the volunteers or non -profit agency involved. The City of San Luis Obispo already has a number of such partnerships, such as providing locations for the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre and the Children's Museum or working with the YMCA to build the roller hockey rink. City foundations: Several of our neighboring cities have established non -profit foundations or funds which accept money from citizens to be granted or used for specified purposes related to enhancing city services. Three cities have established foundations for recreational services and one for murals on public buildings. These foundations are formally approved by the council and usually have city staff either on the board of directors itself or acting in an advisory capacity to the board. Results of Pilot Partnership with Friends of Las Casas de Adobe To date, the pilot partnership with Friends of Las Casas de Adobe (FOCA) has been extremely successful. FOCA prepared and submitted to the City a well-developed budget proposal which requested seed money to be used to establish an office in the Murray adobe, to begin publicizing the group's purpose, and to complete structural analyses, provide critical security and initial stabilization for the other three City-owned adobes. The Council approved the requested funding in two phases, as part of the mid -year budget review for 1996 -97 and as part of the 1997 -99 Financial Plan. The Council also approved Capital Improvement Program funding in the amount of $100,000, as required to match the money provided by a developer for restoration of the Rodriguez adobe. Staff from several departments has also worked closely with members of FOCA to develop a formal agreement between the City and the organization. The agreement clearly defines the City's and FOCA's responsibilities for the restoration process. It also establishes a City staff liaison, methods for payment of approved FOCA expenses, required financial and program reporting from FOCA and insurance and indemnity provisions. This agreement has been signed by FOCA and approved by the Council. Since receiving its non -profit status and the City's agreement and funding, FOCA has been energetic in starting the restoration process. It has taken emergency steps to winterize the adobes, including new roofing materials on the Rodriguez adobe; received responses on a request for proposals for restoration guidelines and structure histories for the three adobes; and held an open house and dedication of the Butron de Canet adobe. At the same time, members have been performing on -going historical research on the adobes, created design charettes, and begun the application process for the National Register of Historic Places. At all times FOCA has been careful to follow the terms of the agreement relative to its activities. So far, the relationship with FOCA provides an excellent model for future partnerships. a 07 Council Agenda Report - Community Partnerships Page 4 Partnerships Recommended for Pursuit After analyzing the information gathered by the survey and taking into consideration the initial success of our pilot project with FOCA, staff is recommending that the City pursue developing a policy which allows for the creation of two types of partnerships -1) those that are related to specific projects and 2) a city foundation. While there are some potential problems with both types of partnerships, as indicated below, the benefits are significant. Partnerships to suaport specific projects 1' ' GM • Allows a City- desired activity or project to take place which would be otherwise fiscally prohibited. • Community interest is high because it is focused on achieving one particular, highly visible result. • Citizens have an outlet for their creative ideas for achieving community betterment. • Expertise can be volunteered with may be lacking by City staff. • Community "buy -in" to the project is elevated. • The City has already had positive experiences with this type of partnership (e.g., roller hockey rink, Friends of Las Casas de Adobe, Performing Arts Center). CONS: • City "seed money" will likely be required to get a project started. • City staff support will be required to coordinate with volunteers or non -profit organizations. • City "in- kind" support will likely be required. • The City must be careful to protect itself from liability created by volunteers not under direct staff supervision. • Without clearly stated objectives and guidelines in the partnership policy, the City could be asked to partner on inappropriate projects or invest more than is prudent. Citv Foundation (e.z._Parks and Recreation I' ' III • A foundation would offer good financial stewardship by providing an opportunity to enhance certain programs with grant funding and contributions instead of reliance on the General Fund. • Without a foundation, the City is ineligible for some types of grant funding. • Program participants would be empowered to become more actively involved with improving their programs. For example, members of a pottery class might choose to contribute money to the foundation for the purpose of purchasing a new and better kiln for their class. • Program enhancements could be added outside the traditional budget cycle. CONS: • City staff support would be required to coordinate with the foundation board of directors. • The City could be perceived as competing for the same funding as other non -profit organizations. • The independence of the board of directors from the City could become an issue. a -y Council Agenda Report - Community Partnerships Page 5 What can be done to mitigate the "cons" of the recommended partnerships? One of the most important aspects of the proposed partnership policy will be to address the possible negative consequences of partnerships and propose mitigation for those concerns. For example: Partnerships to support specific projects Most of the negative aspects of partnerships to support specific projects fall in the fiscal area: seed money, staff support and in -kind support. Without these costs there would be no partnership, as they are what the City brings to the relationship. In return, the City should receive benefits that far outweigh these costs. It will be important to provide guidelines in the partnership policy which address engaging in a cost - benefit thought process before becoming involved in any partnership. The issue of liability protection can be addressed by insuring that any partner provides the City with indemnification and includes it as an additional insured on its liability insurance. In the case of partnerships with individuals (e.g. an adopt -a -park program) proper waiver of liability forms must be signed It will be more difficult to establish absolute rules for appropriate types of partnerships. However, it should be possible to develop general guidelines to address this issue. Citv Foundation (e. e. Parks and Recreation =' The most significant downside to a foundation which directly benefits the City is that it could be perceived as competing with, or could actually compete with, other non -profit organizations for the same pool of money. To minimize this problem and provide protection to other organizations, the City can recommend foundation fundraising and granting guidelines to the board of directors. For example, if the Parks and Recreation foundation were only used to allow City program participants to enhance their particular programs, it is unlikely that the dollars spent by a participant to purchase a new and bigger pottery kiln would have otherwise gone to another non -profit for a totally different purpose. On the other hand, by using a foundation to collect such funds, the donors are assured that their money will be kept safely by an independent organization and spent as intended. The kiln could be donated directly to the City. However, there is often a psychological reluctance to donate directly to government. Experience in other cities indicates that a foundation is more accepted by the public for donation purposes, primarily because there is a natural reluctance to donate funds except with the absolute assurance they will be used for the purpose intended by the donor. If the foundation were also allowed to seek grant funding to be used for recreation scholarships, it is possible that it might find itself competing with an organization like the YMCA for the same grant. Ultimately, it would be the grantor's right to determine which organization would be most successful at fulfilling the purpose of the grant. If that should turn out to be the City, one could argue that in the long run the community would be better served by having the money go to the City. Additionally, since a Parks and Recreation foundation is a separate organization from the City, nothing would preclude it from seeking grants for the YMCA, as well. The advantage to a foundation seeking grants, rather than the City, is that there are some grants for which a foundation is eligible and the City is not. Because of such an eligibility requirement, the City recently lost out on a $10,000 grant which would have replaced about a third of the General Fund money currently used for scholarships. It would be staff's intention to propose limiting the purpose of the Parks and Recreation foundation 0 '_ Council Agenda Report - Community Partnerships Page 6 to three areas -- recreation program or parks enhancements and recreation scholarships. However, it is important to recognize that, while the City may assist in setting up such a foundation, it is ultimately an entirely separate entity from the City with its own board of directors who could choose to expand the purpose of the foundation. The only control the City would have in that case would be to refuse to accept contributions from the foundation. However, staff believes that it is unlikely that a foundation whose purpose is to enhance the City's parks or recreation programs would choose to alienate the City by acting in a manner contrary to City goals. Partnerships Not Recommended for Pursuit City staff believes that it would not be in the City's best interest to pursue two other types of partnerships for the following reasons: Community Foundations • While there would certainly be a benefit to various non -profit organizations in the community from a community foundation, survey information indicates that the City is most likely not the best entity to establish such an organization. Most community foundations are regional in nature and extend beyond the boundaries of a single city. • The interests served by a community foundation are broader than those necessarily addressed by a city and the survey clearly indicated that the foundations normally function separately from any governmental agency. • There are already an avenues for contributing to local organizations, such as through the United Way, and most of the non -profit groups have also developed significant individual fundraising mechanisms. • The City currently has two grant programs which provide financial assistance to local non- profit organizations. • There is already an organization in the county in the formative stage, the Foundation for Community Design, which very well may serve this purpose. Collaborations to provide social services While the City does maintain a Human Relations Commission, and our Parks and Recreation Department does address social needs of our citizens with many of its programs, the City is not the main provider of social services within the county. Those services are provided by County government, as well as many specific non -profit agencies. To become increasingly involved in social services activities could potentially limit the City's ability to provide its traditional services, such as police and fire protection, street maintenance, planning, etc. The City's traditional role in this area is as a community catalyst, not a provider of service. Cities which have implemented collaborations to provide social services have done so as a result of directly perceived needs, such as gang prevention, job training, graffiti prevention, poverty and drug trafficking. While all of these problems exist to some degree within our City, there are already various programs in the community, including the Mayor's Youth Task Force, which receive grants for such purposes. 01_4� Council Agenda Report - Community Partnerships Page 7 What happens next? Once the Council determines the types of partnerships it would like to encourage, staff should be directed to develop a policy and procedures for creating these partnerships. The policy should address such issues as • Guidelines for the level of "seed" money to be provided to a partner. • Guidelines for the level of "in- kind" support to be provided to a partner. • The type of formal agreement which must be developed with a partner. • Requirements which a partner must meet to prevent additional City liability. • Methods of publicizing the City's interest in developing community partnerships. • The level of direct City involvement with a City foundation. • Developing parameters for a City foundation which would encourage it from competing with other non -profit organizations. • A proposed organizational structure for a City foundation. • Proposed by -laws for a City foundation. • Other issues which may be determined by the Council. CONCURRENCES The Parks and Recreation Director concurs with the CAO's recommendation. The agenda report will also be distributed to several non -profit organizations once it is provided to the Council. If the Council is interested in proceeding to the policy development state, public input on the policy will be actively solicited prior to returning to Council with a specific recommendation.. FISCAL IMPACT It is difficult to determine the fiscal impact of the recommended types of partnerships. Each partnership will need to be approved on a case -by -case basis with a thorough exploration of the fiscal impact at that time. Generally, it is safe to assume that, while there will be some cost to the City in terms of staff time, seed money or "in- kind" contributions, a partnership on a specific project has the potential to save the City significant money, and a City foundation will bring in grant funding and contributions. Both types of partnerships should serve to enhance the City's fiscal resources and, at the same time, specific achievements within the community will take place that would otherwise have been beyond the fiscal capacity of the City. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may wish to direct staff to include either or both a community foundation or collaborations to provide social services in its community partnership policy. 2. The Council may wish to direct staff not to include either or both partnerships for specific projects and a City foundation in its community partnership policy. 3. The Council could specify a less proactive, more "status quo" role for the City, though that action would not be consistent with the current Council goal. Attachments 1. Survey results 2. Examples of current partnerships 3. Quarterly report from FOCA 4. Community Partnerships Goal J- -7 ATTACHMFniT , of'O ..•t .d U. If1•''� =�C Q% w i._ 7 - Xi Ls to 0 0 0 �. . o o i w Y H U .y7 w O . y ,Cd O O .� "j fib,; c•ow e� OoE"'d+ y 6. e6 r ,- �: •y • W O U °o U] U 00 p y o � o.�.� a o� o t� � tv C) con •N;Y;-'- yw �� m ta to; co d ^J V b�y 61 o _ C'• O GCd i ${[�d'� ^�1 >� "�• ib� aJ } Y••1 .fir U 4J /�� F-0 may+ ii Qi rAA as 4 N Cd al r y c 44 U 44 00 4 1 LLtSys,S'�.'C:. Cd y O � ii O V Q U _rrpll'.' may O U�y �� °�'°�_'. �'r Ewa ILo"i A •� r1 ATTACHMFniT , of'O w. . ... •.:iish.�'r. Lu. -a Q` CL. Z; ° � w O C4 cd' O aU� ebb O 3 � o UVU w O o co 64� .d w O ccdd F. U y 'y U F 0 co o w o 41 N U c>d C o 0 to oo'd a�i to S o S 4 o.gd aoi °R, v v cd o U ° W ° ,3, °b 0 ° w °deo�o0��,0 GO .L ca .� Q C� •O O O b0 F+ { 00 Uy ca C3 8 U A4 0 a 0 :d ...� .0 0 �° cis :3 o� �w o � b N yy+ 0a U�C7 a clus O O Vi O to d S+" O m �.� p•0 �Awv��w ed .1 d ° U o 0 i. U1 •� O b v, O C °O" o rA y H � b >4 °��� r a 0 >4 C 0 U w O U 3 y ca U �o 1. w � d � o a b 0U m 0 ' v: a.o a p O a p U dD O ca �00 :3 0U�,�o 0 en �Urx.c _., ed .1 d ° U o 0 i. U1 •� O b v, O C °O" o rA y H � b >4 °��� r a 0 >4 C 0 U w O U - /0 tka m c vp m o cd p m a d t U Ir cd st .CD °o 0 W •=' .: rA y on v 609, oo ` 3 c LW,. ..: •. O V > > p O > y o y y 0 to p V4 cc c El O O O cd v� C� c. O p �... N O a� ,°,.rya a •y O N N .ti {r rA rg co 04 cis 0. w W to O :,. m ..-pr' ca - /0 JA .:` =... ub g .o y E a ac a 3 x.o r. cc U .. cd W `ii �:_;'.� is ��Oi:•. -��i y �? c�.a bA Cd c>d � wi .^J y 0 U. � a to y .p 'yr O al ed col C6 ra ID. CD mow^ o o b� 0 ac �o y Co 0 en ce .:,.. a 'd � y pp a . i4. bO acd 0 U .'O.+ Q c� Ra v U w etl cd 'a o a i >,'g i4G q g ':.` '•' ` w> . g a •� ' w � O - O •o a Q O QO» > •� N °'" U d o 0 > q -- - U a IL w .>c O V ) 'd t a o o ID y . NQ HN :-:.` ,:. , ,:T;.0C�� .4 .:, • 'r; y O q y y �' w y J� y ... y cd O O w b b o .p Q 0 0 > co -. cd a y b M y O 4) o .o o > gb o o .: :Z a � y o 0 C3 e� oby a` -,.:_ �F'UVU�m•.. oabO'^ v, y 3 r o cod p}, a y O y U vq = ° .p. v oo a g ca 0. ono :: o > > b W w - ° cO 0 di 1.4 3 P4 U cc cis 0 Q o .5 06 o b F Q C7 = 3 `> o IL ti Ch ..".:: • O :: • k ~: ' p-dv ¢a Qa Cd '` `TY L O ' `• � •V ♦V Vf :C••'[.:f::.t�... ^4. f VII {FI �I-1 O o ca O co w Cd rA JG y c. to rn JA .:` =... ub g .o y E a ac a 3 x.o r. cc U .. cd W `ii �:_;'.� is ��Oi:•. -��i y �? c�.a bA Cd c>d � wi .^J y 0 U. � a to y .p 'yr O al ed col C6 ra ID. CD mow^ o o b� 0 ac �o y Co 0 en ce .:,.. a 'd � y pp a . i4. bO acd 0 U .'O.+ Q c� Ra v U w etl cd 'a o a i >,'g i4G q g ':.` '•' ` w> . g a •� ' w � O - O •o a Q O QO» > •� N °'" U d o 0 > q -- - U a IL w .>c O V ) 'd t a o o ID y . NQ HN :-:.` ,:. , ,:T;.0C�� .4 .:, • 'r; y O q y y �' w y J� y ... y cd O O w b b o .p Q 0 0 > co -. cd a y b M y O 4) o .o o > gb o o .: :Z a � y o 0 C3 e� oby a` -,.:_ �F'UVU�m•.. oabO'^ v, y 3 r o cod p}, a y O y U vq = ° .p. v oo a g ca 0. ono :: o > > b W w - ° cO 0 di 1.4 3 P4 U cc cis 0 Q o .5 06 o b F Q C7 = 3 `> o IL ti Ch ..".:: • O :: • k ~: ' p-dv ¢a Qa Cd '` `TY L O ' `• � •V ♦V Vf :C••'[.:f::.t�... ^4. f VII {FI �I-1 O o ca O co ?� t ....:.•. L -� •s: O cC U c4 .(L) :.,4107 .. O O A � ^�ri �•^ -M w� 00 04 cts Cd E4 co too O:. '�':CL' :• cif O O Qr OU C4 ov N jai it 0 :;FLU- ; ". " 0.0 ° i Cd to V w N 0 y C7 ty. �,�� . ,•. ^a b •� c� ago Cl. N 4r � 4r °� o o'o.� r. 3 °•°c� a�i c°i 64 JS U y ►, W cc 0 co ar..•�..__. t Cd U b H O �.. a. N �+ CL W � .�:... ' , U 2 'Q w eti . U U Vf O �"' +•+ v1 fA W rA c Y v� ! V . V vJ ., Y/1 at +/Y al r /i H .~.'y'- °.�`�•:: <�' ii it `�•• ,� Qi -. r co r. o rn Q p w ' A5 0 3 a�i 49 0 Cd U E- 0 U P. aoi r cc Ei .. Cd Cd U O I A V W q P4 _ _: .: CU : � ., oy o � � a .+ � .«1. • �y Hwy X Q V! �y cd a'r+ O cd rn ♦. =i~ UA 0.01 oU U$ H o�n UAL., - •'l:LL.._.:.�.. O G. OO 19 do C O V1 t po E o cd O W �C C� to cc �..:H• .r y 0 Cd N y 'C7 m V y :'. -! Oo .N. .a cd `c-+ > �' �q o Q �°'r° � ..�, a cr ° abi .c ►. bA o a'�i y •� Q 'O O� .D c'„ V O Q .0 O. °+ -a ..• .0 o y cd y w � Cl) .r1 4. c cd �a LLT Cd Cd IL) 3 .0 0 O z .+ b C� { � •�i y rA O wo I ' d 0 OO Cb " =1 !�„ 0. c y o. c`di a b w p, m n r;J co -.tom tj.._'Ei .' 0 cc o Cd o 0 al r /i .'" MT., '� 0 m d y y A O o U obi 7 n �..E'_ o i:z �?'.���p'.��+s_�s•„' -'.mss, '� y � U oa.o 7 n �..E'_ cd ••�BS2 �,. cd H, a to w m O cka on cd y . a'L ., �+ cci y > •� •� CL - .....- I::.:XY. y ;:i.a...;.. w O ,O y � V w P: cn W O u ..I. pf 7 n �..E'_ ••�BS2 �,. it COL go H, a L •� e y . a'L LL • �+ cci O > •� •� - .....- I::.:XY. ;:i.a...;.. �. O ,O y � V w P: cn W O u ..I. pf EXAMPLES OF CURRENT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PARTNERSHIPS Governmental Partnerships SLOCOG /SLORTA • Multi -Modal Transfer Center • Downtown Bus Transfer Center • Regional transportation planning Cal Poly • Performing Arts Center • SLO Transit • Fire Service • GIS services • Fire Department CERT Program (with private industry/business, as well) • Whale Rock Commission (with Men's Colony) • Student Neighborhood Assistance Program (SNAP) • Archaeology lab San Luis Coastal Unified School District • Joint use of park and gymnasium facilities • Fiber optic project • DARE • School Resource Officer (SRO) Program • S.T.A.R. Program • Police diversion program County of San Luis Obispo • Homeless shelter • Prado Day Center • Palm Street Parking Structure • City /County Library • Police diversion program San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management • Recycling requirements of AB939 Central Coast Cities Self Insurance Fund • Banking agreement for liability and workers' compensation insurance Non - profit Partnerships YMCA • Lease of property next to Sinsheimer Park • Roller hockey rink in Santa Rosa Park • Youth basketball programs ATTACHMENT 2 J -Rf Page 2 Nonprofit Partnerships (coat.) SLO Little Theatre • Lease of old library building site Children's Museum • Lease of Nipomo Street site SLO Art Center • Lease of Mission Plaza site Rifle Club • Lease of Corporation Yard Site Historical Society • Lease of Old Carnegie Library site and other storage • Rehabilitation of Carnegie Library building Interfaith Coalition for the Homeless/People's Kitchen • Prado Day Center The San Francisco Giants • Junior Giants ECOSLO • Creek stewardship The Land Conservancy • Outreach to community • Donation of property to the City Sierra Club • Bishop Peak acquisition • Trail maintenance Friends of Las Casa s de Adobe • Restoration of City owned adobes Gandy Dancers Committee • Casting of the Gandy Dancers statue SLO Arts Council • Art in Public Places Program 01-/6 Page 3 Non - profit Partnerships (coot.) Local Youth Sports Programs (AYSO Soccer, SLO Youth Baseball, SLO Youth Football, Little League) • Developing more playing fields • Use of existing playing fields LOUR Congregational Church • Use of their Senior Center for recreation programs • City sale of land to church for social program purposes .4a7 it nl �1 1 G C, n V a 3 a o q ° U o io3 ` t JF `y v 0 55. MM /o C c y C^ U f It= II d p p 70 ,O C �-�� a . o O y ,.- C 'O O Ny : °?d cO° E C/i .t H �C E O 0 0 1: • onek y �' G C v aW C Y U O G O 0 0 � .yd. V 7 V d a E -0 c G° O O v � w c `0 ° 1 u - Gtir d•6 C 0 C� a $3 0 ��� A ° ° G `� ? o" — am 3 = d — d x v o a o ov e 3 d C~ v L _x =:E E C U �, d d U G 0 1 �-� �. Illet J". Lill d o z 'a OHO d d C O ♦1�. z 7 O 42 0 00 y y 0 0 a M x N N © '161111111110 x a 0 1 I' 1 4 11 10 1 the Friends of Las Casas de Adobe are opening one of San Luis Obispo's oldest adobe homes, and dedicating it to dotfla Rosa Butr6n de Canet, the original mistress of the adobe. All who appreciate San Luis Obispo's heritage will want to come by to tour a part of our city's history. i HOUSE I D E D I C ANT t OJ til The adobe was the home of Judge and Postmaster Simmler and his wife Rosa Butr6n, the widow of Vicente Canet. Mary Gail Black, writer and po- litical activist deeded the adobe and grounds to the City of San Luis Obispo in 1989. Tours will be q led by friends of Mary Gail Black and by descen- Free Admission. Tickets for the food, drink, and raffle items may be purchased within the grounds., A la carte samplings of creative California cuisine will be catered by the Cheese and Wine Market, our neighbors the Odd Fellows, will barbecue fa- vorites from Old Country Deli, and Decorations will be by Luna Rustica. Parking will be courtesy of the I.O.O.F. hall next door. Commemorative badges offered to the first 50 arrivals., S,t`>�A COMMUNI ^J7(^;1 @ . P.O. Box 15114, San Luis Obispo, California 93406-5144'..'- The mission of the Friends of Las Cosas de Adobe is to stabilize and restore selected historic adobe buildings in Son Luis Obispo for the community to enjoy. They seek to Identify the Individual qualities of each to function as cultural heritage parks, and to see these buildings serve new and continuing roles in the com -' munity life of San Luis Obispo. The Friends are pursuinAls j vision fn a partnership with the City of San Luis Obi achieve a self-supporting program of interpretation an use. x d 0 x D M bd M �d bw w+ w ro POLICIES AND OBJECTi„cS `/WOR CITY GOALS - COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OBJECTIVE Encourage partnerships with non - profit organizations for the mutual benefit of both the City and the organizations. DISCUSSION Background During the past year, it has become apparent that there are a number of activities or needs that, while of concern to the City, cannot be addressed directly due to limitations on financial resources. However, some of these issues have raised such a high level of community interest that individual groups have stepped forward and offered to assume responsibility for taking action if the City would assist them with support in terms of official recognition and "seed money ". Such a group is Friends of Las Casas de Adobe (FOCA). FOCA is in the process of incorporating as a non - profit organization for the purpose of restoring and preserving three historical adobe buildings owned by the City. At the same time, Parks & Recreation has been meeting with a number of local citizens to consider forming a non- profit foundation to support department activities by securing grants not directly available to a city. Such grants could be used, for example, to provide program scholarships for "at risk" youth. A foundation would also allow program participants to make contributions for the purchase of specialized or upgraded equipment, like a new kiln for a pottery class. (It is important to note that the Parks and Recreation foundation will not compete with ;al be accepted non - profit organizations for existing resources; any funds that might have been diverted from sting non - profits will not by the Foundation.) eroposed Program Workscope In establishing a goal of encouraging community partnerships with non - profit corporations, the Council has recognized the tremendous potential for additional volunteer and economic resources this could create. However, because the possibilities are so wide- ranging, it will be important for the City to move forward into these partnerships in a well thought -out, logical way, based on a full understanding of the implications involved. Therefore, the initial workscope will be limited to acquiring information from other governmental agencies on similar programs, developing a program policy, and moving forward, on a pilot basis, to establish a relationships with FOCA. A Council study session, which will discuss the data gathered from other cities and address issues such as the pros and cons of forming a departmental foundation, will be held prior to developing a policy for Council approval. Council approval will also be necessary for any "seed money" provided to the pilot program and, depending on the outcome of the policy, the creation of a Parks and Recreation foundation. Issues We Will Face in Achieving this Goal There are many questions which need to be resolved before a final policy can be developed, including: ■ What is the best structure for the non - profit organizations? ■ Would it be in the City's best interest to encourage the creation of a single "umbrella" foundation which would incorporate a variety of activities, or would the City be best served by forming partnerships with a number of single - interest organizations? Should City staff assist in forming a foundation, or should the City simply wait until a non - profit is fully organized before becoming involved with it? 0 Should the City offer "seed money" or simply in -kind support? ■ What is the best way to provide formal acknowledgment of these partnerships? B -55 ATTACHMENT 4 0�-2120 POLICIES AND OE CTIVES MAJOR CITY GOALS - COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS ■ What are the legal implications of any relationship with a non - profit? ■ How direct a role should the City play in providing financial support services? Some of these questions can be answered by surveying other agencies; others will be answered as the City follows through on the pilot program. ACTION PLAN ■ Provide Friends of Casas de Adobe (FOCA) with encouragement, formal recognition, 7/97 "seed money" and in -kind support, as approved by Council. ■ Collect data from other communities and community organizations. 8/97 ■ Hold study session to review program options and pilot program progress. 11/97 ■ Develop policy on community partnerships. 1/98 ■ Assist City departments in assessing opportunities for potential community 3/98 partnerships. ■ Continue monitoring success of FOCA and Parks and Recreation Foundation. Ongoing RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT ■ Administration for overall program coordination, survey of cities, policy development, Council study session, and assistance to FOCA. ■ Parks and Recreation for gathering information on a departmental foundation. ■ Community Development and Public Works for assistance with FOCA. ■ Other departments for proposing future partnerships. FINANCIAL AND STAFF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL FOCA has requested $22,000 for the 1997 -98 fiscal year in order to perform structural analyses on two adobes, fence and light one adobe for security reasons, stabilize the roof and walls of one adobe, and initiate fundraising activities. OUTCOME - FINAL WORK PRODUCT ■ Development of a policy on partnerships with non - profit organizations which will provide guidance to City departments as they move forward in the future with such alliances. ■ Establishment of a formal relationship and provision of "seed" funding to Friends of Las Casas de Adobe which will allow structural analyses on three City-owned adobes, security at the adobe sites, initial stabilization of the buildings and the commencement of fundraising activities to support future restoration. s -s6 Z /