City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 02/05/13 Item Number: A-2_
PRCS COMMISSIONAGENDA ITEM: (1) Receive and File Individual Reports from
the Members of the CC Giving Donation/Sponsorship Program Ad Hoc
Subcommittee; and, (2) Consideration of a Recommendation to the City Council
Regarding the Establishment of a PRCS Commission Fundraising Subcommittee.
Contact Person/Dept.: Dan Hernandez,
PRCS Director
Phone Number: (310) 253-6655
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: (Email) Meetings and Agendas – Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Commission (01/31/13).
Department Approval: Dan Hernandez
(01/29/13)
City Attorney Approval: N/A
Chief Financial Officer Approval: N/A City Manager Approval: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends theParks, Recreation and Community Services (PRCS)
Commission (1) receive and file individual reports from the members of the CC
Giving Donation/Sponsorship Program Ad Hoc Subcommittee; and, (2) consider
making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the establishment of a
PRCS Commission Fundraising Subcommittee.
BACKGROUND:
During the years 2006 through 2011, the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services (PRCS) Commission had a two-member Fundraising or Financial Resource
Development Subcommittee. Beginning in 2010, the Financial Resource
Development Subcommittee began meeting with staff to discuss new fundraising
strategies. As a result of those discussions, the Subcommittee began developing a
donation/sponsorship program for the PRCS Department which they named “Culver
City Giving.” AJanuary 12, 2011 memo to the City Council from the PRCS
Commission outlined the proposed program, which would ultimately provide the
following types of donation opportunities:
a) Park Amenities
b) Park and Recreation Facility Improvements
c) Services and Programs
d) Corporate Sponsorship, including Naming Rights
As noted above, the first component of what came to be called “CC Giving” is a park
amenity replacement program called “CC Parks Donations,” later referred to as the City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
“Park Hero” program,which was intended to encourage people to donateneeded
amenities at Culver City parks. Such programs are not uncommon are done
successfully in many communities. The PRCS Director has had success with these
types of donation-specificprograms in previous agencies, generating over
$100,000.00 in sponsored amenities.
The CC Giving Donation/Sponsorship Program Ad Hoc Subcommittee
In September 2011, all six of the Commission’s Advisory Subcommittees were
dissolved based on recommendations from the City Attorney’s Office and the City
Manager’s Office; Ad Hoc Subcommittees with specific short-term objectives were
formed instead. This was done due to considerations based on the Brown Act and
the related fiscal impact of operating and staffing standing Commission
subcommittees.
The CC Giving Donation/Sponsorship Program Ad Hoc Subcommitteewas formed
as an alternative to,and a limited-term extension of, the Financial Resource
Development Subcommittee. The objective of this Ad Hoc Subcommittee is to
create promotional materials, both in hard-copy and web-based, for the Park Hero
program. The current members are Chair Stuart and Commissioner Yanda. They
have been working on a Park Hero program brochure which is still in the
development stages.In the interim, staff has developed and web-posted a price
sheet to provide information for those wishing to donate park amenities.
Over the past two years, both the Ad Hoc Subcommittee overseeing this project and
the PRCS Commission have periodically discussed the CC Giving
Donation/Sponsorship Program. However, during a discussion of this topic at the
January 3, 2013 PRCS Commission meeting, Chair Stuart stated that she believed
that the PRCS Commission should consider seeking additional support from the City
Council to meet the Department’s fundraising needs. In addition, she felt that a
permanent fundraising arm of the PRCS Commission should be established. After
some discussion, the Commission agendized the issue of forming a permanent
fundraising (sub)committee with marketing objectives for this evening’s meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Report by Commissioner Yanda
A report on the Donation/Sponsorship Program submitted by Commissioner Yanda,
one of the members of the CC Giving Donation/Sponsorship Program Ad Hoc
Subcommittee, is provided as Attachment A. This document provides an update on
the status of the Program and the Park Hero materials and an analysis of the future
direction and function of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Report by Chair Stuart
A report titled “PRCS Fundraising in 2013” submitted by Chair Stuart, one of the
members of the CC Giving Donation/Sponsorship Program Ad Hoc Subcommittee,
is provided as Attachment B. This document provides a launching point for a
discussion on ways to develop and support future fundraising efforts on behalf of the
PRCS Department. Some of the points touched upon in the Chair Stuart’s report
include:
• The future of parks and their financing in the United States
• Potential partnerships with other governmental agencies and non-profits
• Contracting out specific services
• Creating a Super Volunteer program
• Eight steps to facilitate brainstorming marketing ideas
• An outline of the “Integrated Marketing” approach
• A summary of “talking points” for a future discussion with the City Council
• The process of establishing and tracking marketing goals
• Developing a successful fundraising plan
Establishing a PRCS Commission Fundraising Subcommittee
One of the central recommendations set forth by Chair Stuart at the January 3, 2013
PRCS Commission meeting and in her attached report is the establishment of a
PRCS Commission Fundraising Subcommittee. As noted earlier, the Financial
Resource Development Subcommittee, which did not directly engage in fundraising
but was formed to assist the PRCS Department in developing fundraising strategies,
was dissolved due to Brown Act considerations and the related fiscal implications.
Based on the interpretation of the Brown Act provided by the City Attorney’s Office at
the September 6, 2011 PRCS Commission meeting, an “ad hoc” subcommittee
serves only a limited or single purpose, it is not perpetual and it is dissolved when its
specific task is completed. Ad-hoc subcommittees do not constitute a “legislative
body” and are not subject to the Brown Act. A “standing” subcommittee, which has a
continuing subject matter jurisdiction is considered to be a “legislative body” and is
subject to the requirements of the Brown Act. Under the current policy,
subcommittees are required to abide by the following:
– Agendas must be posted outside City Hall 72-hours prior to the meeting.
– Meetings must be held in City facilities. Informal locations cannot be used
because the meetings are open to the public.
– The subcommittee is only empowered to make recommendations to the
PRCS Commission.
– No official meeting minutes are kept.
– Staff attendance is not mandated. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
The Current Status of PRCS Department Staffing and Fundraising Efforts
With regard to all existing programs and projects, staff resources are over-extended;
with multiple demands on staff time, day-to-day operations and real-time problem
solving are prioritized. This is especially true in light of the fact that as per the
direction of the City Council and City Manager, no new positions are being approved
for the Department. Any proposal that would require a reallocation of existing
resources requiresre-prioritizing staff duties and thereby reduces levels of service to
the Department and community, which would be of negative impact. Many
successful fundraising components of various cities throughout California do not
utilize city staff and, in fact, some of the most productive are fully-staffed by
volunteers.Currently in Culver City, the Cultural Affairs Foundation has a staff
member assigned as part of the Cultural Plan adopted by the City Council over four
years ago when the economic climate was better and funding levels were higher.
Also of note is that under the current operational format, PRCS Department staff is
free to work directly with various user groups and organizations in the community to
discuss the Department’s needs and accept donations. Recent successes in this
area include, but are not limited to:
GROUP DONATION AMOUNT
Southern California Aquatics
(SCAQ), Royal and Team Santa
Monica Swim Clubs
Pool Deck Amenities $6,000
Culver City Rotary Club Teen Center Computers $5,000
Anonymous Donor New Scoreboard at Veterans’
Memorial Park
$5,000
Culver City Senior Citizens
Association
Miscellaneous Equipment,
Supplies & Services at the
Senior Center & Teen Center
$20,000
“Yes on Measure Y” Committee New Bench at the Overlook at
Culver City Park.
$1,400
TOTAL $37,400
Based on the information above, it is important to state that whatever
recommendation is made by the Commission, it should not hinder staff’s ability to
work independently on fundraising directly with program participants. Rather, it
should look at areas outside normal PRCS interactions for opportunities to raise
funds. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the discussion of this Agenda Item.
However, it is important to note that current staffing and budgetary restraints prevent
the PRCS Department from allocating significant resources toward supporting a
PRCS Commission Fundraising Subcommittee. At bare minimum, the materials to
develop the meeting Agenda and the staff time necessary to prepare and post it
would be absorbed by the PRCS Department Administrative Division, thereby
diverting these resources from other projects already included in the Department
workplan.
In terms of assisting the Subcommittee in meeting its goals, there is no budget for
printing marketing materials or multiple brochures, as suggested in the Attachment.
Unless a donor could be found, the development of marketing materials would
require a budget request to the City Council to provide funding. The estimated cost
of marketing materials would be well in excess of $1,000.00 without more specific
details at this time. It would therefore be more cost effective to forgo printed
materials and usehyperlinkson the City’s website to provide information on the
various types of giving opportunities to potentialdonors.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. “PRCS Department Donation/Sponsorship Program Status Update with
Recommendations for the Future,” a report submitted by Commissioner
Yanda.
B. “PRCS Fundraising in 2013,” a report submitted by Chair Stuart.
MOTIONS:
That the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission:
1. Receive and file individual reports from the members of the CC Giving
Donation/Sponsorship Program Ad Hoc Subcommittee; and,
2. Make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the establishment of a
PRCS Commission Fundraising Subcommittee;
OR
3. Provide staff with alternate suggestions.
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: (1) Receive and File Individual Reports from the
Members of the CC Giving Donation/Sponsorship
Program Ad Hoc Subcommittee; and, (2) Consideration
of a Recommendation to the City Council Regarding the
Establishment of a PRCS Commission Fundraising
Subcommittee.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
A. “PRCS Department Donation/Sponsorship Program Status
Update with Recommendations for the Future, ” a report
submitted by Commissioner Yanda.
1 - 3
B. “PRCS Fundraising in 2013, ” a report submitted by Chair
Stuart.
4 - 14
PRCS Department Donation/Sponsorship Program Status Update
with Recommendations for the Future
Report by Commissioner Yanda Page 1 of 3
January 21, 2012 Commissioner Yanda
For February’s PRCS Commission Meeting
Report on status of the PRCS Donation / Sponsorship Program; Current “Park Hero”
materials; Analysis of the future direction and function of ad hoc subcommittee.
The PRCS Commission has historically explored ways to secure additional resources
for the PRCS department for many years. In January 2011 the Commission’s original
program was divided into four categories:
1. Park Amenities (brochure)
2. Facility Improvements
3. Services and Programs
4. Corporate Sponsorships (including naming rights)
There was also a recommendation to Council to consider a floating a bond in the future.
1. Park Amenities Program to date
Additional work by the current Ad Hoc Sub-committee members has resulted in refining
step one of the original plan for securing outside funds for park amenities. The current
brochure(s) and recommended 1 page template(s) for the PRCS dept website are now
in the final draft phase after receiving input from Commissioners and the PRCS
Director.
Highlights of the brochure are as follows:
a. Brochure is designed in Word in order to make it simple for staff to make
changes. These changes may include approved price changes to reflect increases,
adding or deleting amenities or parks in need; payment options; links to any social
media sites run by the city to support the program; Co-branding the brochure to make it
easy for service clubs / non-profits and approved groups (chamber of commerce,
homeowners associations, sports leagues, etc.)
b. Brochure was redesigned to use less color making it less costly to print in-house
or for those downloading it from the website.
c. Simple brochure design lends itself to being edited for special events. Photos
can be swapped easily and space can be made without the need for graphic designer.
d. It is recommended that this brochure be the first of several marketing materials to
support an amenity donor program. Evaluating how effective the first brochure is at
creating interest will be up to staff and commissioner. Alterations or redesign may be
needed after reviewing feedback.
ATTACHMENT A
1PRCS Department Donation/Sponsorship Program Status Update
with Recommendations for the Future
Report by Commissioner Yanda Page 2 of 3
Highlights of the recommended webpage are as follows:
a. The recommended design is one used by Santa Monica, CA after examining the
variety of amenity donations websites across the country. This design is simple and
easily uploaded and maintained by the city IT dept.
b. Should include a downloadable version of the Park Hero brochure.
c. Have the ability to allow visitors to sign up if interested in the program. In
addition to name & contact information this e-mail sign up can be used it as a brief
questionnaire to establish area of interest, time frame for donation, type of donor
(bequest, celebration, corporate, etc.) and to track hits, identify leads and start a
database. This is dependent on what IT is able to do.
d. Second stage of city designed webpage would be to include a simple Park Hero
newsletter, and a Big Wish list.
e. Third stage would be to establish a virtual donor wall online and explore other
uses based on staff input.
Additional actions:
? Finalize brochure and website
? Determine whether the design and branding is effective – make changes as
necessary
? Design collateral materials to be used as templates by staff
? Long term goal should be to develop a set of branding guidelines (colors, fonts,
and formatting) to maintain a consistent quality and protect the PRCS brand.
? Develop a media plan to cover publicity, news, notable donations, social media
and newsletters.
? Develop a network of Park Hero ambassadors through those groups already
active with PRCS (seniors, sports related, teen center, past donors).
? Use other city events to get the word out about the program – table tops and
program placement along w/ Fiesta marketing should be a goal & part of
negotiations
? Test and track results – bring back to commission for progress report.
? Determine whether smaller donations (under $500 / 250 / 100) should have some
form of recognition and what form recognition in each category will take.
Steps 2, 3, 4 + Bond – determining what works and how well.
2. Facility Improvements
3. Services and Programs
4. Corporate Sponsorships (including naming rights)
5. Future Bond
2PRCS Department Donation/Sponsorship Program Status Update
with Recommendations for the Future
Report by Commissioner Yanda Page 3 of 3
The economy and the city’s budget constraints have put more pressure on the PRCS
dept than was foreseen when the original project was undertaken by the Commission.
Culver City has historically been small enough to weather the ups and downs of the
economy but the expectations of residents have increased over the past 15 years as
have the costs of running the department. Examining what other cities have done when
faced with these same challenges has been useful to understand how to continue to
effectively work towards the stated goal of the Commission; securing additional revenue
sources for the PRCS dept for the immediate future and developing a mid and long
range set of recommendations to send to council for consideration.
Fundraising versus Friend-raising: How does the public view city parks direct
fundraising efforts?
Research by the National Parks Foundation and NRPA has established that direct
fundraising by parks departments is less effective and tends to encounter resistance
whereas the same fundraising appeal by a “Friends of” or other credible NPO results in
more donations and support. Passive donation programs such as amenity donations
which include memorial plaques do work, however the same rule follows - park
boosters are effective in spreading the word and result in increased donations.
Effective fundraising efforts by similar sized parks departments rely on evaluating
proposed fundraising / marketing programs through the lens of establishing the true cost
of raising money; SWOT analysis to maximize opportunities while avoiding negative
pubic perception and/or unintended consequences of these efforts; identification of key
supporters; developing joint fundraising opportunities with other groups; sponsorships;
and most importantly setting realistic goals with revenue targets for each category of a
fundraising program and tracking the results of these efforts.
All of this requires time, effort and work on the part of the city and department, but the
effort can show good results if applied consistently. The ad hoc sub-committee should
continue as a valuable link to the commission, community and other partners.
There should be an agreed upon master schedule, project list and an online repository
for notes, research, projects and work in progress of this sub committee in order to
manage the complex nature of the ad hoc subcommittee’s work without administrative
support from staff. Both current subcommittee members have begun making use of a
system and it is available to the dept director.
It should be a priority of the ad hoc sub committee to meet with the director and put
together a master list of recommendations, tasks remaining on current work, projects
and timelines along with a progress report and any work that is ready to be sent to the
city council for an update at the next commission meeting.
3ATTACHMENT B
Report by Chair Stuart 4 Page 1 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 5 Page 2 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 6 Page 3 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 7 Page 4 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart $ Page 5 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart g Page 6 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 10 Page 7 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 11
Page 8 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 12
Page 9 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 13
Page 10 of 11 Report by Chair Stuart 14
Page 11 of 11