Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2011 Adopted Min CC/DUSD~~ ~"~~r,~ MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ~~~ 1 O F T H E C I T Y OF D UBL I N/D U BLIN "~'~' - ~-~ 8~' UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ,~;~~// ~~ LIFOR~~ SPECIAL MEETING - FEBRUARY 10, 2011 A special meeting of the Dublin City Council/Dublin Unified School District was held on Thursday, February 10, 2011, in the Dublin Library Community Room. The meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM, by Mayor Sbranti. , PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hildenbrand, Swalwell and Mayor Sbranti Boardmembers Cunningham, Tomlinson, Haubert, Kenney, Miller ABSENT: Vice Mayor Hart PUBLIC COMMENT 6:07:09 PM Introductions were made and public comment was offered, with none received. FACILITATED DISCUSSION BY DEREK OKUBO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL CIVIC LEAGUE 6:07:26 PM Mr. Okubo led a discussion on community image building and the formation of partnerships between cities and school districts. He also provided historical information on the National Civic League and how they assist cities across the nation to thrive in serving their communities. Mr. Okubo also provided historical background of the All America City Award. Mr. Okubo commended the City and the School District for their coordination of efforts for a possible partnership to work through current economical challenges. A review of the historical perspective of the City was provided and the following comments were noted: rapid change since Dublin was incorporated in 1982; a blue collar community; known for the many fast food establishments; no government unit representation for schools; a small town feel; one stoplight for many years; a strong sense of community; viewed as Pleasanton's shadow; a gem undiscovered; sense of pride; safe; the proud underdog; an affordable DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/ 1 DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MINUTES VOLUME 30 SPECIAL MEETING G`~OF DpB~y m ~ ~~~ FEBRUARY 10, 2011 '``~~~~~ GGIFOR~~~ community; a strong sense of heritage; a high level of community involvement; and is not an employment city. The discussion continued regarding how the City was perceived as a community today, with the following comments noted: upwardly mobile; a progressive community, on the cutting edge, more legitimate through business corporate center, growing economically, desirable location, school district progression, incredible public facilities such as parks, library, senior center, new academic facilities funded by community supported measures, well managed, responsible fiscal stewardship, pro-business, a welcoming community and adaptive and responsive to the community through City Parks and Community Services, striving for excellence, high level of parent involvement and a highly diverse community, and still a safe community. A discussion of the City's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) occurred. Strenqths included: great City Staff, access to public safety resources from trusted agencies, great geographical location, access to transportation, solid infrastructure, high parent involvement, great quality of life, good economic base, consistently dedicated leadership in both School District and City Council, strong faith-based as well as community and service organizations. Ms. Catherine Lew of the Lew Edwards Group stated that their community polling indicated that constituents were overwhelmingly satisfied with City services and trusted the City's fiscal responsibility. She also indicated that the findings reflected that: 86% of residents rated the quality of life in Dublin as excellent or good; 79% of residents rated City services as excellent or good; less than 50% of residents felt there were any real concerns with traffic, schools or public safety. City Manager Pattillo stated one of the strengths of the community was consistency in leadership of both the City Council and School Board, who have tackled tough issues over the years and have made tough decisions for the betterment of the entire community. Weaknesses or areas of improvement were noted: high commercial vacancies; no designated traditional downtown area; Camp Parks division of west and east; vulnerability of facilities maintenance at risk dependent on economy; and community misconception of areas of responsibility between School District and City. Opportunities noted were: educating the public on areas of responsibility of the School District and City responsibility to the community; how to prepare for build-out; how to prepare for student population growth and fluctuations; finding a way to use School facilities for the community's use; as well as volunteer opportunities between both organizations. Threats discussion was led by Ms. Lew who elaborated on current threats of the State Budget's impact on cities and school districts in the entire state. Ms. Lew indicated that,based on polling results in the community, the residents' two biggest concerns were the State Budget deficit and the impact of the State Budget on local services. Other threats noted: the State had really taken the predictability out of the budget process which causes challenges in the City's long- DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/ 2 DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MINUTES VOLUME 30 G`~OF DpBf SPECIAL MEETING n, ~ ~`;~ FEBRUARY 10, 2011 '~~~~~~~ ~'~t~FOC~~`° term planning; charter school was a threat to the School District in terms of reduction to current funding; and misinformation from a variety of social media sources. Mr. Okubo led the discussion on what image the City Council and the School Board envisioned for the future. The following comments were noted: maintain the image of the place to live, work & play; leader in sustainability; a fully integrated community; a desirabfe location to live; thriving community in schools, tax base, public facilities; and continue to add new facilities. Mr. Okubo continued with discussion on the definition of the City/District partnership with the following noted: mutually beneficial vision; understanding the capabilities and needs of both the City and District; action plans with accountability and uplifting of each other; understand that the State does have mandates which have a direct impact on the City; as well as maintaining a safe community which public safety is well over 50% of the City budget. Mayor Sbranti highlighted the City's Mission, "The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life which ensures a safe and secure environment that fosters new opportunities", and reviewed the City Strategies: 1) Pursue economic development initiatives that attract new businesses while strengthening existing businesses; 2) Continue to strengthen the identity and aesthetic appeal of the downtown; 3) Create a community that supports environmental sustainability and provides an open space network that ensures environmental protection and provides public access where appropriate; 4) Develop dynamic and unique community recreational and cultural opportunities in the region; and 5) Develop a Citywide communication program that provides connectivity with our residents and businesses across several media outlets. Board President Cunningham highlighted the District's Vision, "All Dublin Students Will Become Lifelong Learners". He further stated that all their Strategic Initiatives were based on their Mission Statement, "Our mission is to ensure that every student becomes a lifelong learner by providing a rigorous and relevant education that prepares them for college or service to our country and for success in the global economy." Mr. Cunningham also reviewed the District's Strategic Initiatives: 1) Maximize Student Success; 2) Safe and Heaithy Learning Environment; 3) Human Resources Support; 4) Financial and Facilities Support; 5) Technology - Educational Support; and 6) Communication - Mission and Initiatives Support. Ms. Lew led the discussion on the potential of a future financial partnership involving a joint revenue measure and shared recent successful examples of city and school districts which had worked together on identifying their short term and long term revenue needs. She cited, as an example, the City of Santa Monica and the Santa Monica Unified School District, who proposed a simple majority requirement on sales tax, no sunset, and had a companion measure where proceeds were split 50/50 between the City and School District. She cautioned that, in reality, only 11 % of the school parcel taxes passed Statewide in the November 2010 General Election. Ms. Lew shared another example: the Emery Unified School District and the City of Emeryville successfully obtained 55% requirement bond covering construction of joint city-school facilities. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/ 3 DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MINUTES VOLUME 30 G~~t OF DUB~y SPECIAL MEETING 19r~~i'/~~~ FEBRUARY 10, 2011 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~'~L/FOR~~~ In both cases, Ms. Lew stated that this type of joint venture required several joint City Council and School Board meetings to accomplish. Ms. Lew stated that, in any case, there would be a lead agency dependent upon what was the desired outcome. In the City of Dublin, the measure could not be listed as a simple majority level unless it was held at the~next regularly scheduled City General Election in November 2012, which would, in her judgement, be a good year to do so. Details regarding sunset clauses and additional operating revenues for the School not limited to facilities would need to be discussed. School Boardmember Haubert and City Manager Pattillo then briefly discussed the type of proposed tax (Utility User Tax) and the community education that would need to be presented to residents and the business community, if it was the direction of the City Council and the School Board. Ms. Lew stated that currently there were more than 150 cities with a utility user tax, and there were a number of ways to be community responsive in a proposal. Common exemptions included seniors, the disabled, and low income citizens. There was also a way to create consensus with business stakeholders and the business community. Superintendent Hanke stated that, in order for schools to continue to thrive, they would need two funding sources. One source would be needed to cover programs and one source to cover facilities. The current parcel tax generates $1.2 million, and was in its second year of a five year sunset. When the School District polled the community, the response was a relatively small percentage of support for additional funding and had decided to reconsider at the appropriate time which might be 2012 to pursue an additional measure which was imperative if schools were to continue to move forward as they had been. City Manager Pattillo stated that, in past years, the City's property tax revenue fully funded salaries for all public safety services which made up over 50% of the City's budget. This was no longer the case. She also stated that, while both the City and Schools were doing better than most, it was only with careful foresight and planning that this would continue to occur. Ms. Lew stated that, if there was interest in a 2012 tax measure, then a new community survey should occur. She also cautioned that, if the City was the lead agency in this proposal, there was only an opportunity to act on this every other year. If the direction was to move forward in a dual agency partnership, quality discussions and planning needed to begin. Mayor Sbranti commented that if polling were to occur, it might be best to do if a June election occurred. If the Governor's measures impacted schools, the polling data might be significantly different than if it were to occur any time prior to June. Ms. Lew stated that the timeline necessary to move forward with this measure would typically be one year. The Mayor's suggestion would place the process within that timeline. ~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL/ 4 DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MINUTES VOLUME 30 G~~,~OFDpB~y SPECIAL MEETING ~9~~~~~~ FEBRUARY 10, 2011 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~'f1GIFpRT,~~+ Mayor Sbranti summarized the needs identified which were the School District's operating needs currently funded by a parcel tax, facilities maintenance needs which was partially funded by the current school bond and the City's structural gap and capita! improvement project gap. Mr. Okubo thanked Ms. Lew for her input and asked the City Council and School Board for final thoughts on the ideal partnership and how they would move forward. The following was noted: the City and District work together on an enhanced version of land use planning discussions; detailed list of priorities into specific items that would be targeted, such as a narrative would be developed, gaps and needs identified, and tell the story of why and what, hold a discussion on how to make City & School facilities more visible to the community. For example, a shared aquatic center and computer labs, hold discussion on how and when sharing of facilities can occur, enhancing non-monetary and non-capital collaboration, enhance language in strategic initiatives in ways that supported the partnership, make a decision to preserve 2012 as an option; if so, would need structured disciplined timeline for the agencies' deployment. City Manager Patti!!o summarized the following timeline: City Manager Pattillo, Superintendent. Hanke and Ms. Lew to coordinate a strategy, then meet with the City/School Liaison committee in April 2011 with findings, followed by a meeting with the City Council and School Board in July or August. City Manager Pattillo also cautioned everyone that this meeting tonight might cause speculation and spread inaccurate information as to the intention of the overall meeting, and stated the importance for all to come to an understanding that the City Council and School Board were in the explorative stages of this process and each respective body would determine if this partnership was to move forward. ~ 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the City Council/Dublin Unified School District, the meeting was adjourned at 8:23 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops. Minutes prepared by Dora Ramirez, Deputy City Clerk. V ~ ~r-- i~~C~ Mayor / ATTEST: ~ Deputy City Clerk DUBLIN CITY COUNCIU DUBLIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MINUTES VOLUME 30 G~~,~OFDpB~ SPECIAL MEETING a~ ~ ~a FEBRUARY 10, 2011 i~~~~~~~ Gc,FOR~'`° 5