October 21, 2003

SUBJECT:

Proposed Revisions to Council Co-Sponsorship Policy—“Study Issue”

On the surface, “Co-Sponsorship” connotes a fairly simple, symbiotic relationship between the City and civic-minded non-profit groups. Beneath that surface, however, alongside a host of positive attributes, there has grown a number of challenging issues.

For the past several years, staff, the public, and the Parks and Recreation Commission (which oversees the review and approval of the majority of Co-Sponsorship applications) have struggled somewhat with the implementation of the City’s Co-Sponsorship policy. This study seeks to review related challenges and provide recommended solutions for Council’s consideration. This study also seeks to provide greater consistency in the manner in which the City considers support to outside organizations, whether or not they are “Co-Sponsored.”

It is not the intent of this study to curtail the benefits provided independent organizations serving the community. Rather, staff seeks to develop a more comprehensive, effective and efficient means of providing these groups a reasonable level of support given the structure and role of City government.

Fiscal Impact

Neither the elimination of the existing Co-Sponsorship Policy nor the creation of a new Relationships With Outside Groups Policy would require funding in and of itself. The creation of specific “special agreements” could result in fiscal impacts to the City, but these impacts would be known to the City prior to it approving or denying those agreements.

Public Contact

Informal discussions regarding the pros and cons of Co-Sponsorship have been conducted off and on with various Co-Sponsored groups for several years now. Copies of this report have been provided to all Co-sponsored groups. As a part of its review of this Study Issue, staff offered to meet with all Co-Sponsored groups to discuss the status of Co-Sponsorship and staff’s exploration of alternative means of supporting community groups. Over a dozen separate meetings were conducted during which staff met with representatives from all but one of the existing co-sponsored clubs (the Stamp Club was unable to attend but did discuss related issues with staff by phone).

On September 10, 2003, a joint Study Session was conducted with the Arts Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. All co-sponsored groups were invited to attend.

On September 17, the Arts Commission held a public hearing on this issue.

On September 24, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing on this matter.

On October 1, 2003, staff met with a number of neighborhood association representatives to advise them of the proposed “Relationships with Outside Groups” policy and to discuss the framework of a proposed “special agreement” between the City and neighborhood associations.

On October 6, 2003, the Library Board held a public hearing on this issue.

Public contact was made through posting of the Arts Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board and Council agendas on the City’s official notice bulletin board, posting of the agendas and report on the City’s web page, publication of the Council agenda in the San Jose Mercury News, and the availability of the report in the City Clerk’s office, Library, Parks and Recreation Administration, Community Center, and Senior Center.

Recommendation

Staff recommends the elimination of Council’s existing “Co-sponsorship Policy” and the establishment of a new “Relationships With Outside Groups Policy” within section 7.2 (“Community Participation”) of the Legislative Policy Manual.

The Arts Commission considered this matter during its public hearing on September 17, 2003, and concurred with staff’s recommendation.

The Parks and Recreation Commission considered this matter during its public hearing on September 24, 2003, concurring with staff’s recommendation but also advising Council to consider future revisions to the City’s Outside Group Funding process in order to make it easier for groups to understand and apply. The Commission also recommended that staff find a better term to describe the proposed “Partnerships with Outside Groups” (subsequently, staff changed the proposed policy to “Relationships with Outside Groups”).

The Library Board held a public hearing on this issue on October 6, 2003, and voted in accordance with staff’s recommendation (4-0, 1 member absent).

Attachments

A. Co-Sponsorship Policy: Legislative Policy 7.2.6 (pdf format)

B. List of Groups Currently Co-Sponsored with the City of Sunnyvale

C. Outside Groups Funding Policy: Legislative Policy 5.1.4 (pdf format)

D. Proposed Council Policy: Relationships With Outside Groups Policy

E. Challenges Associated with Co-Sponsorship Policy

BACKGROUND

A “Co-Sponsored” club is currently defined as an independent organization officially recognized by the City of Sunnyvale for providing a community service or promoting an informed interest in the City’s objectives, services, and programs. All Co-Sponsored clubs must be non-profit, tax exempt associations or charitable corporations with by-laws and a constitution. Clubs apply for Co-Sponsorship on an annual basis, with approval determined by appropriate City Boards and Commissions. Various levels of Co-Sponsorship (with varying levels of City support) are approved based largely on the percentage of club members that are Sunnyvale residents. Each Co-Sponsored club must abide by the conditions of Co-Sponsorship as outlined by the City’s policy.

The City of Sunnyvale has been “Co-Sponsoring” independent organizations providing social and recreational programs to the community since the late 1950’s. (See Attachment A, “Co-Sponsorship Policy.) The City’s philosophy has historically been to help facilitate the provision of programs by outside groups that supplement City programs. (See Attachment B, List of Groups Currently Co-Sponsored.) Additionally, the City has been committed to encouraging volunteerism and citizen participation in municipal government, which is inherent in the Co-Sponsored club program structure and operational design.

The concept of Co-Sponsorship is purely positive. Co-Sponsored groups are the epitome of “motherhood and apple pie” in that they represent countless hours of community service contributed by dedicated volunteers working toward positive, lofty goals. No one wants to diminish the positive impact that these groups have on the community. Rather, staff is interested in finding reasonable, effective and efficient ways to support these groups given the structure and the role of City government.

Issues Prompting This Study: On the surface, “Co-Sponsorship” connotes a fairly simple, symbiotic relationship between the City and civic-minded non-profit groups. Beneath that surface, however, alongside a host of positive attributes, there has grown a number of challenging issues, most of which can be placed into one of two general categories:
1.	Confusion on the part of independent groups as to how best to request assistance from the City; confusion on the part of staff, Boards and Commissions as to what process to use under various circumstances;
2.	A host of inconsistencies and challenges associated with the implementation of the current Co-Sponsorship process, including:
	A.	Increasingly awkward disparities between how “Co-Sponsorship” is administered and how the City handles other forms of relationships with outside agencies and independent organizations;
	B.	Lack of clarity governing the benefits of Co-Sponsorship;
	C.	Confusion regarding the relationship between “Co-Sponsored” groups and the City (i.e. are they an extension of City service?);
	D.	Questions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the “Co-Sponsorship” process; and
For the past several years, staff, the public, and the Parks and Recreation Commission (which oversees the review and approval of the majority of applications for “Co-Sponsorship”) have struggled with the implementation of the City’s Co-Sponsorship policy. This study seeks to review related challenges and provides recommended solutions for Council’s consideration.

EXISTING POLICY

Co-Sponsorship Policy: Policy 7.2.6 of the City’s Legislative Manual defines the City’s “Co-Sponsorship” policy. Please see Attachment A.

Outside Group Funding Policy: Policy 5.1.4 of the City’s Legislative Manual. Please see Attachment C.

Banner Policy: On September 25, 2001, City Council adopted a policy for dealing with banners desired to be placed on City property by outside groups. Staff notes that formal documentation of this policy within the City’s Legislative Policy Manual has yet to occur.

DISCUSSION
Following is a discussion of the issues prompting this study. Each issue ends with a recommended solution. (All of staff’s recommendations are in bold.)
1.	Confusion on the part of independent groups as to how best to request assistance from the City; and confusion on the part of staff, Boards and Commissions as to what process to use under various circumstances:
	Staff believes it is important to venture outside a review of the existing “Co-Sponsorship Policy” in order to adequately review and address the subject of relationships with outside agencies and independent organizations. This is because the City actually engages in a variety of different relationships with independent organizations and focusing strictly on a revision of the current “Co-Sponsorship Policy” will fail to address important interrelated issues. Relationships are established by the City not only through Co-Sponsorship, but through the Outside Group Funding process (Attachment B), Banner Policy, Fee Waiver process, special agreements, and informal relations without ties to any of the above. There is no road map describing the differences (or duplications) between these various processes, nor is there a centralized source of information to help staff or an outside group determine which process to use to best advantage.
Recommended solution:
§	*Staff recommends the creation of an umbrella policy under which all* types of relationships between the City and outside organizations would be covered**.
	The recommended Relationships With Outside Groups Policy would not reflect a specific program, but rather would describe the full range of various City programs and policies designed to promote relationships between the City and outside organizations.
§	*Staff recommends that the Relationships With Outside Groups Policy* include a brief description of and reference to the following existing City policies:**
	§	Outside Group Funding Process:
		This process explains the types of financial support the City offers independent organizations and describes how to pursue financial assistance from the City.
	§	Banner Policy:
		This policy explains the circumstances under which the City will allow independent groups to display banners on City property.
	§	Special Agreements:
		The City has entered into numerous “special agreements” with outside organizations where the desired relationship is not adequately addressed by any or all of the above.
§	Staff does not recommend any changes to the above policies at this time (It should be noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that Council seek to streamline the Outside Group Funding process in the future).
	Existing policies would simply be incorporated into the umbrella “Relationships” Policy by reference.
§	Staff recommends the inclusion of two additional topics to be referenced under the umbrella “Relationships” Policy:
	A.	Publicity for Outside Groups:
		This would define the conditions under which the City would assist independent groups with publicity. It would incorporate the City’s Banner Policy, but would also address such issues as use of the City’s logo, posting of materials on City property, and conditions under which the City would publicize independent organizations.
	B.	Use of City Facilities by Outside Groups:
		This would explain the circumstances and conditions under which the City would allow independent organizations to use City facilities.
§	Please see Attachment D, Recommended Policy for Relationships with Outside Groups.
	Adoption of the recommended “Relationships” Policy would clarify and simplify for many outside groups the process of attaining City support. The starting point for groups seeking a relationship with the City would be centralized. In this manner, any outside agency seeking a relationship with the City could be directed first to the City’s Relationships With Outside Groups Policy. That policy would provide the group a good overview of all the different types of relationships available, a good sense as to which type would best serve its interests, and guidance on how to proceed. This policy would simplify things for many groups but would not limit in any way Council’s ability to approve “Special Agreements” with organizations seeking levels or types of support not specifically provided or addressed by the policy. Any "Special Agreement" requiring Council approval would first be reviewed by the appropriate board or commission. Where no appropriate board or commission existed, the Office of the City Manager would provide its review prior to Council consideration.
2.	A host of inconsistencies and challenges associated with the implementation of the existing “Co-Sponsorship” Policy:
	The implementation of the current “Co-Sponsorship” Policy is plagued by a number of inconsistencies and challenges, including a lack of clarity governing the benefits of “Co-Sponsorship,” confusion regarding the relationship between “Co-Sponsored” groups and the City; and questions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of the “Co-Sponsorship” process. For a more detailed review of these challenges, please see Attachment E.
Recommended solution:
§	Council will note that the current “Co-Sponsorship” Policy is conspicuously absent from the list of existing policies staff is recommending be included in the new Relationships With Outside Groups Policy. In fact, staff recommends the elimination of the existing Co-Sponsorship Policy because:
	A.		Groups currently “Co-Sponsored” could use the same umbrella “Relationships” Policy to achieve their desired relationship with the City.
			Many would find this a simpler road to travel. Some would be able to enjoy their desired level of City support without any additional effort or paperwork. The Parks and Recreation Commission would be relieved of its obligation to process a number of time-consuming applications. More complex relationships would require a “Special Agreement,” allowing the Parks and Recreation Commission a more thorough review than is currently provided by the generic “Co-Sponsorship” process. The “Special Agreement” would allow for multi-year agreements, eliminating the need for annual reviews where deemed unnecessary; and
	B.		Elimination of the existing “Co-Sponsorship Policy.”
			Elimination of the existing “Co-Sponsorship Policy” would eliminate a host of inconsistencies and challenges currently presented by the implementation of that policy.

Impacts to Existing Co-Sponsored Organizations

The adoption of this policy would have no initial impact on existing Co-Sponsored Groups. Each of these groups is officially Co-Sponsored through the end of June 2004. Each has been informed that if Council were to adopt staff’s recommended Relationships With Outside Groups Policy, staff would work with each group to determine whether it could simply operate under the general provisions of that new policy, or whether it desired to apply for a Special Agreement. Any Special Agreement drafted as a result of those discussions would be brought before Council for its consideration prior to June 2004. Following June 2004, the existing “Co-Sponsorship” Policy would be eliminated.

Impacts to Non Co-Sponsored Organizations

The adoption of the recommended “Relationships” Policy would ensure that all requests from outside organizations be handled in accordance with the same policy. There would be no further distinction between “Co-Sponsored” Groups and those not Co-Sponsored. Any outside organization wishing assistance above and beyond that provided by the general provisions of the Relationships With Outside Groups Policy would apply for a Special Agreement in accordance with that policy.

Fiscal Impact

Neither the elimination of the existing Co-Sponsorship Policy nor the creation of a new Relationships With Outside Groups Policy would require funding in and of itself. The creation of specific “Special Agreements” could result in fiscal impacts to the City, but these impacts would be known to the City Council prior to it approving or denying those agreements.

Conclusion

Staff presents the following conclusions:

The existing Co-Sponsorship Policy is outdated, inefficient and ineffective.

Outside groups seeking support from the City ought to do so in similar fashion and in accordance with consistent policy direction. However, the City should have a process that provides the flexibility to establish different types of relationships with different types of outside organizations.

PUBLIC CONTACT

Informal discussions regarding the pros and cons of Co-Sponsorship have been conducted off and on with various Co-Sponsored groups for several years now. Copies of this report have been provided to all Co-sponsored groups. As a part of its review of this Study Issue, staff offered to meet with all Co-Sponsored groups to discuss the status of Co-Sponsorship and staff’s exploration of alternative means of supporting community groups. Over a dozen separate meetings were conducted during which staff met with representatives from all but one of the existing co-sponsored clubs (the Stamp Club was unable to attend, but did discuss related issues with staff by phone).

On September 10, 2003, a joint Study Session was conducted with the Arts Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. All co-sponsored groups were invited to attend.

On September 17, the Arts Commission held a public hearing on this issue.

On September 24, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission held a public hearing on this matter.

On October 1, 2003, staff met with a number of neighborhood association representatives to advise them of the proposed “Relationships with Outside Groups” policy, and to discuss the framework of a proposed “special agreement” between the City and neighborhood associations.

On October 6, 2003, the Library Board held a public hearing on this issue.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve a Council Policy for Relationships with Outside Groups as depicted by Attachment D to be incorporated within section 7.2 (“Community Participation”) of the Legislative Policy Manual.

2. Eliminate Council’s existing Co-Sponsorship policy as of July 1, 2004. Continue existing relationships with groups “Co-Sponsored” under Council’s existing policy through the remainder of Fiscal Year 2003/2004. Encourage each group currently “Co-Sponsored” with the City to work with staff to determine via Council’s Relationships with Outside Groups Policy how best to pursue the City support and relationship it desires.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends both Alternatives 1 and 2.

The Arts Commission considered this matter during its public hearing on September 17, 2003, and concurred with staff’s recommendation (5-0 in favor).

The Parks and Recreation Commission considered this matter during its public hearing on September 24, 2003. Following staff’s presentation, the President of one co-sponsored club (Unique Boutique) spoke in favor of the staff recommendation, suggesting the club would find it easier in the future to maintain its relationship with the City under staff’s proposed revisions. The Commission discussed the matter at length, asking a great many questions of staff. Following discussion, the Commission voted in accordance with the staff recommendation, but also advised Council to consider future revisions to the City’s Outside Groups Funding process in order to make it easier for groups to understand and apply for funding (5-0 in favor). Those members who explained the reason for their vote cited their belief that a simpler, more consistent policy for outside groups was warranted. The Commission also encouraged staff to find a more appropriate title for the proposed “Partnerships with Outside Groups,” given that the term partnership connoted a 50-50 relationship whereas the intent of the proposed policy was to allow for a wide range of relationships, not all of which would be 50-50. Staff subsequently changed the title of the proposed policy to “Relationships with Outside Groups.”

The Library Board held a public hearing on this issue on October 6, 2003, and voted in accordance with staff’s recommendation (4-0, 1 member absent).

Prepared by:

Robert A. Walker

Director of Parks and Recreation

Approved by:

Robert S. LaSala

City Manager