5 4
0 0
AGENDA ITEM
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Sister City Program Follow Up
1. Motion Directing Staff on Governance Structure
2. Resolution of Appropriation for Funding an Hourly/Part-Time Senior Administrative Analyst
3. Resolution of Appropriation for Funding a Full-Time Senior Administrative Analyst
4. Motion to Increase the Citywide Authorized Salaried Position Count
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 25, 2024, staff presented a report to the City Council detailing the history of Glendale’s Sister City relationships, comparing governance structures of nearby cities, and seeking input on program components. Following the direction provided by Council at this meeting, staff has completed several steps, including updating records to include Friendship Cities, rejoining Sister Cities International, and reaching out to inactive sister cities and community members for engagement in a sister city committee. Staff also researched potential governance structures including: a committee, a city commission, a 501(c)(3) corporation and a partnership model. Staff is seeking Council direction on governance structure and the corresponding level of staff resources.
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for8/13/2024 calendar
2 RECOMMENDATION
That Council provide direction on a governance structure to oversee the sister city program and the corresponding level of staff resources.
ANALYSIS
On June 25, 2024, staff presented a report (Exhibit 1) to inform the City Council on the history of Glendale Sister City relationships, showcase governance structures of nearby cities and seek Council input on program components. This report is a follow up to the direction provided by Council at that meeting:
•Include Friendship Cities in records and outreach.
•Rejoin Sister Cities International
•Reach out to inactive sister cities to gauge their interest in reactivating relationship •Engage community members about their interest in serving on a committee •Research and present governance structures to oversee program Action Items Update
Friendship Cities Inclusion
Friendship Cities are now included in records and outreach efforts. Glendale’s four friendship cities include:
1. Kentron Administrative District, Yerevan, Armenia
2. Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, South Korea
3. Haeundae-gu, Busan, South Korea
4. Paju City, South Korea
Rejoin Sister Cities International
The city has successfully rejoined Sister Cities International as of June 26, 2024.
Tri Cities Sister Cities Convening
Glendale has initiated the Tri Cities Sister Cities Convening to discuss best practices and collaboration amongst Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena. By engaging in this Sister Cities dialogue, the cities aim to build stronger relationships and learn from each other to enhance programs.
Outreach to Inactive Cities
Staff reached out to inactive sister cities to gauge their interest in reactivating relationships and all of them indicated their desire to re-engage with Glendale.
Community Engagement re: Committee
Staff reached out to community members about their interest in serving on a sister city committee. The following community members have expressed an interest in serving on the organization to manage the sister city program:
•Edith Fuentes, Filipino community liaison
•Chang Lee, Korean community liaison
•Keiko Nakada, Shoesian Tea House (through Mike Meltzer) 3 •Guillermo Garcia, Glendale Latino Association and GLAC •Glendale Community College Student Representative (to be determined) Emeritus Status
Due to a lack of response from Tlaquepaque, Mexico, and the dire circumstances affecting Martuni in the Republic of Artsakh, both cities will be entered into emeritus status.
New Sister City Relationship Requests
Staff also responded to Noyemberyan’s new sister city request about Council’s direction to not add additional cities at this time. In the spirit of information exchange, staff continues to provide resources and information when asked by international cities.
Governance Structure Options
At the June 25th meeting, staff presented the governance structures for the City of Burbank and Pasadena:
The City of Burbank has a Sister City Committee that is a separate entity from the City of Burbank with a committee governance structure that includes one to two staff from the City of Burbank assisting the community-driven program, which is currently primarily focused on international student exchange programs.
The City of Pasadena has a Sister City Committee that is a separate entity from the City of Pasadena and operates with by-laws, committee governance structure, and has one staff member assigned to support the program. The Pasadena Sister City Committee serves as an umbrella 501(c)3 with each of its sister cities as subcommittees. The Committee is run by community volunteers and is the most active amongst the tri-cities, with at least one event per quarter and regularly scheduled Committee and Subcommittee meetings.
Staff has identified four options for structuring governance. These include a committee, similar to the City’s Armenian Genocide Commemoration Event Organizing Committee, a City commission, similar to the many Boards and Commissions the City currently has, a 501(c)3 corporation, similar to the model used by the Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA) and, fourth, a partnership model, where the City would partner/contract with an existing non-profit to run the program on behalf of the City. Below is a table that summarizes some of the benefits and challenges of each option:
Governance
Structure
Benefits Challenges
Committee
(Similar to Armenian
Genocide
Commemoration
Organizing
Committee)
•Easy to establish and
modify
•Flexible and quick to
assemble
•Lower administrative costs
•City oversight
•Eligible for grants
•Limited authority due to advisory
role and less formal structure
•Less structured decision-making
•Potentially less accountability due
to no audits or reporting
requirements
•Dependence on city resources
•Possible lack of continuity due to
changing membership
4 Commission
(Similar to
Community Services
and Parks
Commission)
•Formal authority and
recognition
•City oversight
•Access to city resources
and funding
•Greater accountability and
transparency
•Stable governance
•Eligible for grants
•More bureaucratic
•Slower decision-making
•Requires formal establishment
through City
•Higher administrative costs
•Limited fundraising capabilities due
to association as a City
Commission
•City staff resources needed for
compliance
501(c)3
Corporation
(Similar to Glendale
Youth Alliance)
•Formal authority and
recognition
•Can raise funds
independently
•Greater control over
program activities
•Flexibility in decision making
•Engage volunteers and
community
•Long-term partnerships
•Eligible for tax-exempt
status
•Eligible for grants
•Requires formal establishment with
IRS regulations.
•Ongoing compliance and reporting
requirements
•Need for dedicated Board and
management
•Potential funding challenges
•Risk of mission drift
•May require administrative and
operational support from City Legal,
Finance and HR Departments.
•Higher administrative costs (open
own bank account and hire a CPA
firm).
Partnership model
(Similar to Ascencia,
City contracts with
them to run the
homeless shelter)
•Quick implementation with
MOU. City can appropriate
funds and set guidelines in
the form of an MOU
•Leveraging mutual
resources (City & Non-profit)
•Existing community ties and
community engagement
through non-profit’s existing
volunteer base
•Independent from City but
aligned with City mission.
•Being associated with a city
can enhance the reputation
of the organization
•City may have less direct control
over program operations.
•Differences in governance and
accountability standards can create
conflicts.
•Potential for misalignment in
priorities or methods.
•Staffing resources/commitment
from non-profit.
•Changes in leadership or political
priorities can impact the partnership
The Committee and partnership model structures are the simplest and fastest to implement and would require the least City staff resources. The City Commission would require the Council’s establishment of said commission, appointment of commissioners by the Council, and the ongoing resources of the City Clerk, GTV and IT to meet Brown Act requirements and was not preferred by Council during the June 25th meeting. The 501(c)3 model would require the most amount of staff time in terms of initial set up, mainly since the City would have a relationship with said non-profit with some of the additional requirements explained below.
5 Non-profit corporation (independent of City vs. with relationship to City) Direct City involvement in the formation or creation of a nonprofit under city government may involve additional oversight and compliance with laws such as the Brown Act, Public Records Act, and Political Reform Act, ensuring transparency and accountability. When a city council or other elected group creates an organization to do work on their behalf, the board of that organization is considered a "legislative body" under the Brown Act (Government Code § 54952(c)). This means the board must follow the rules of the Brown Act, as well as the Public Records Act and Political Reform Act (conflict of interest law).
In contrast, independent nonprofits only need to adhere to standard state and federal regulations for nonprofit corporations.
A city-established nonprofit may also be subject to additional city oversight, including reporting requirements, aligning their activities with City policies. Independent nonprofits, governed by their own board of directors, have greater autonomy in decision-making and strategic direction, though they must still comply with nonprofit regulations. City government nonprofits may have limited operational flexibility due to the need to comply with city policies, potentially slowing decision-making. Independent nonprofits have greater flexibility, allowing for quicker responses to opportunities and challenges.
Governance Structure Tied to Staffing Resources
At the June 25th meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with the next phase of this effort with the employment of a new part-time employee position to manage the City’s sister city program.
If Council elects to form a non-profit corporation, it will require additional staffing resources in the form of a full-time salaried employee to adequately help set up the corporation and manage the ongoing Board meetings, the finances, the required administrative record keeping and to operate the programs and special events.
FISCAL IMPACT
Under both Scenarios listed below, staff recommends hiring an employee at the level of a Senior Administrative Analyst position to manage this program.
Based on prior Council direction, the hourly/part-time costs for a Senior Administrative Analyst are noted below in option one.
Alternatively, if Council desires to proceed with the establishment of a non-profit model and hire a full-time position, then it will require increasing the Citywide Authorized Salaried Position Count from 1,620 to 1,621. The costs associated with option two are below.
Based on which option is chosen, the cost associated with either scenario was not included as a part of the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. Thus, staff is seeking approval of a resolution of appropriation from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance. The appropriation requests are outlined below:
6 Option 1: Hourly/Part-Time Senior Administrative Analyst (20 Hours/Week) Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$53,000 GL: 25300-1010-000 GL: 41300-1010-
MSD-6504-P0000-
General Fund
Undesignated Fund
Balance
Option 2: Full-Time Senior Administrative Analyst (40 Hours/Week) Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$126,000 GL: 25300-1010-000 GL: 41100-1010-
MSD-6504-P0000-
General Fund
Undesignated Fund
Balance
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Council may choose to approve the non-profit model with the addition of a full-time salaried position increasing the citywide authorized position count as well as a Resolution of Appropriation.
2) Council may ask staff to conduct additional research. 3) Council may choose another alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Stephanie Mkhlian, Legislative Affairs and Communications Manager Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: 6/25/2024 Sister Cities Staff Report
7