HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.3 Community Engage EffortsG~,~ OF DU~~~2
~ ~
~9' ~_ -~' ,82
\~~~~i/
l
`~4LIF0~'~~~
STAFF REPORT C I T Y C L E R K
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ^[~]00-0C~
DATE: May 4, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager
SUBJE • Update and Direction on the City's Community Engagement Efforts
Prepared By: Linda Maurer, Assistant to the City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council has established a high priority objective to "effectively communicate and solicit
input from the community regarding City services and activities." Since October 2009, the City
Council has engaged in a community outreach effort to better understand citizen concerns,
issues and perceptions. Staff is checking in with the City Council regarding the effectiveness of
these efforts and is seeking direction on the continuation of community engagement and
outreach work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide Staff direction on the implementation of any future community engagement activities.
.. ~
Submitted By Re iewed
Assistant to the City Manager Assistant 't nager
Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. ~' ~
DESCRIPTION: .
On October 20, 2009, the City Council approved an agreement with the Lew Edwards Group
(LEG) to assist in conducting a Community Survey. In conjunction with their partner, Fairbank
Maslin Maullin Metz & Associates, a telephone survey was conducted with the residents of
Dublin between November 30, 2009 and December 6, 2009. The survey was designed to solicit
feedback on the level of resident satisfaction with Dublin's quality of life, the provision of City
services, as well as help to identify what essential City services residents desired to protect.
Additionally, the City sought opinions on the City's long-term financial viability during these
challenging economic times, as well as attempted to identify areas of concern relating to public
finances and funding of local services.
The consultant team presented the survey results to the City Council at the February 2, 2010
meeting. To summarize, 86 percent of respondents rate the quality of life in Dublin as
"excellent" or "good" and 79 percent believe the City is doing an "excellent" or "good" job in
providing services. Additionally, Dublin residents are fiscally prudent: 71 percent rate
maintaining the long-term financial viability of the city as extremely/very important. When asked
about City budget shortfalls and emergency reserves, 83 percent of respondents do not want
the City to entirely deplete its emergency reserves to address budget deficits. The survey
respondents indicated that they would consider a potential local revenue solution to protect City
funds from being taken by Sacramento and provide more security for the City's financial future.
Following the presentation on February 2, 2010, the City Council authorized the continuation of
community outreach activities to further engage residents on the City's fiscal situation, as well
as seek input on the priorities for City services (Attachment 1).
Over the past two months, Staff has worked closely with the LEG on a strategy to continue
these activities. The following is a list of the activities that were anticipated as part of the
community engagement effort and an update on the status of the activity:
Scope of Assignment Complete Incomplete/Ongoing
Develop and implement a community survey Complete
Present results of surve to the City Council Complete
Develop an opinion leader list Complete
Mail out letters to opinion leaders regarding the
state of the City's budget Complete
Develop a frequently asked questions sheet Complete
Develop out speaker schedule to reach out to the
community and tell the budget story Complete
Develop PowerPoint presentation for speaker
schedule Complete
Schedule speaking engagements with community
groups and homeowners associations Incomplete
Add opinion survey to City website Complete
Include survey item on back of Recreation Guide Complete
Assess community responses to survey On-going
Convene a citizens advisory group Incomplete
Page 2 of 3
Issue press releases on City Council action On-going
relatin to the bud et
Develop first mailer to residents regarding Complete
Dublin's financial needs
Mail out the first mailer to Dublin households Incomplete
Host meeting with past Dublin 101 Leadership Incomplete
attendees to update them on the budget needs
Develop second mailer to residents regarding Incomplete
response to outreach on public safet
Conduct second community survey to gauge Incomplete
opinions about the Cit 's bud et needs
Issue another letter to opinion leaders Incomplete
Develop third mailer to residents regarding Incomplete
response to needs of seniors and the City's long
term financial stability
Because the City is at a midpoint of the contract with LEG, and given that Staff (with LEG's
assistance) has conducted a couple of key community outreach elements summarized above,
Staff believed it was appropriate to check in with the City Council regarding the outreach efforts
and to get direction regarding the continuation of these activities.
As it relates to the general community survey feedback initiated at the beginning of April, the
following is a summary of the responses received through the various forms of outreach (City
website, opinion leader letter, as well as the Recreation Guide - Attachment 2). It should be
noted that staff has received a very low response rate to this survey (under 60 responses since
beginning of April).
Answer Options Response Percent
Maintaining the long-term financial viability of the City 84.21 %
Maintainin current level of police protection and crime prevention 75.44 %
Keeping local fire stations open 63.16 %
Maintainin streets and repairing potholes 61.40 %
Maintaining and improving 9-1-1 emergency/medical response
times 59.65 %
Maintaining city parks 54.39 %
Preventing decreases in sworn firefighter positions 35.09 %
Maintaining youth after-school and senior pro rams 29.82 %
Preventing cuts to school safet officers/crossing guards 24.56 %
Depleting emer ency reserves to prevent cuts 24.56 %
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Staff Report and Minutes from February 2, 2010 Meeting
2. Example of Survey from Recreation Guide
Page3of3
~ i ~~
G~~~ OF DpB~y
~
19;~;~1, STAFF REPORT C I T Y C L E R K
`c~~~~ ~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File #^~ D^~-~ O~
DATE: February 2, 2010
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattiilo, City Manager
SUBJE , Community Survey Results and Recommendation to Start Phase 2 of the Project
Scope, Including Additional Community Outreach and Education
Prepared By: Joni Pattillo, City Manager.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City Council has established a high priority objective ta "effectively communicate and solicit
input from the community regarding City services and activities." In October 2009, the City
Council authorized a Community Survey to better understand citizen concerns, issues and
perceptions. The City Council will be presented with the results of this Community Survey, as
well as a recommendation from Staff to continue the community engagement and outreach
work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project were funded as a high priority objective in the adopted
Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Budget. The funding appropriated was $1,500 more than the combined
Phas~ 1 and Phase 2 agreement awarded to the Lew Edwards Group. The original proposal
presented by the Consultant identified additional services that could be added following Phase
1 to provide a complete turn-key project. These services include $35,000 for design, printing,
distribution and mailing of printed community information and education materials as well as a
followup Community Survey at a cost of $17,500. A Budget Change in the amount of $51,000
is provided for #he additional services.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Receive the Community Survey Results from the Consultant Team.
2) Authorize proceeding with Phase 2 of the Project including the Additional Community
Outreach and Education.
3) Approve the Budget Change
Q~ ~
Submitted By:
Administrative Services Director
~ewed
Assistant City Manager
I-~~m 7.3 S-y-t c-
ATTACHMENT 1
~ ~' / /~
~
DESCRIPTION:
On October 20, 2009, the City Council authorized an agreement with the Lew Edwards Group
(LEG) to assist in conducting a Community Survey. In conjunction with their partrler, Fairbank
Maslin Maullin Metz & Associates, a survey was conducted with the residents of Dublin between
November 3Q, 2009 and December 6, 2009. The survey was designed to solicit feedback in the
following areas:
• Level of resident satisfaction with Dublin's quality of life.
• Level of resident satisfaction with the job the City is doing in providing City Services.
•(dentification of what essential City services residents desire to protect.
• How the City's long-term financial viability is viewed in the midst challenging economic
times.
• Areas of concern as it relates to public finances and funding of local services.
The consultants will present the survey results during the City Council meeting.
The presentation of the survey results completes Phase 1 of the project. In reviewing the
results with the Consultant Team, Staff recommends that the Consultant Team continue
forward with Phase 2 of the projec#, as well as appropriate additional funds to conduct
community outreach and education with the residents of Dublin on some of the key survey
results.
The current agreement with the Lew Edwards Group included a recommended option for this
additional community outreach and education, including the production and distribution of
printed materials and additional survey work. Staff recommends including these additional
services to the existing agreement so that coordination efforts can remain streamlined and
manageable for Staff, given the number of on-going City communication priorities already
underway. The cost for the additional services requires a Budget Change in the amount of
$51,000.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Copy To: Catherine Lew, Lew Edwards Group
Dave Metz, Fairbank Maslin Maullin Metz & Associates
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Budget Change
2. Staff Report Dated October 20, 2009 City Council
Meeting Authorizing Agreement With Lew Edwards
Group (without attachments)
~3~~~~
CITY OF DUBLIN i.~'
BUDGET CHANGE FORM FY 2009 / 2010
CHANGE FORM # _
New Appropriations (City Council Approval Required): Budget Transfers:
X From Unappropriated Reserves (Fund) From Budgeted Contingent Reserve (1080-799.000)
Within Same Department Acrivity
` From New Revenues __ Between Departments (City Council Approval Required)
Other
x ., ~ ~~e~v~7 y~ A. - ~
,.. h~~iiL±,7E~~,,,~~'+~~~~9~~ ~ ~~ ~
,~ ~ ~. .... .... ~ -~ :
a _,. v.. _.. °~~~ ~
~, ~~~'I4~~~ .
._.. ..r~.
~ .,.._ s1
~ ~~ ~. ~,~ ~ ~.
. ~~N~A~~3 ~AGC ~ ..~ ~ `~~'~
:i~~~~ _.. ~ ~3 ~~ . =i~4Z~N
_ . T .. ....
Name: EXPENSE - GENERAL FiJND -
City Council - Printing
$35,OOfl
' GL Account #: 1001.1101.61116
Name : EXPENSE - GENERAL FUND -
City Council - Contract Services - General $16,000
GL Account #: 1001.1101.64001
Fin Mgr/ASD:
Signature
Date: I ~~- ~ ~ ~p
~
REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY: The agreement with Lew Edwards Group identified additional
sezvices as part of a recommended phase 2 which include production and distribution of informationai
materials as well as additional community surveys. The budget change is required to fund these services as
presented in the Staff Report at the City Council meeting on February 2, 2010.
City Manager: ~ ~o~ ' ~
Signature
Date: ~ Z-~' ! a
As Approved at the' Cify Council 1Vleeting on:: Date: - 2/2%2010
Mayor:
Signature
Posted By:
Signature
Date:
Date:
G: lBadger Chmigesll_2009_/01/3_2_2_)0_CmmrySurny.DOC
~~ ~~
~.. ~
~~~~
~ ~
19`~~~A1
~
l ~ 1
STAFF REPORT
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
File # ^~~[~0 -~~
DATE: October 20, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Joni Pattiilo, City Manager
SUBJEC : Authorize an Agreement with Lew Edwards Group as Lead Consultant to Evaluate
Opportunities for Revenue Enhancement
Prepared By: Paul S. Rankin, Administrative Services Direcfor
~XECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A high priority City Council goal for this Fiscal Year is to "undertake voter opinion research to
determine community support for a revenue measure targeting resident valued enhancements."
Given the threat from the State of Califomia raiding traditional local revenues, and the
inadequacy o# revenue growth to keep pace with expenditures, scoping for possible additional
revenue is timely and prudent. The City requested proposals from firms with expertise in the
following two areas: Voter Opinion Polling and Funding Strategy 1 Communication Services.
The City Council will consider approving an agreement with Lew Edwards Group.
FlNANCIAL IMPACT:
The #otal amount budgeted for this project in Fiscal Year 2009-2010 is $65,000. Phase 1 of the
project will be completed for a cost' not #o exceed $32,500. During Phase 2, the costs
associated with Strategic Communication Services over a seven month period are proposed to
be $31,000. The costs associated with Phase 2 of the project may vary depending inclusion or
exclusion of optiona! elements and a more refined scope, which would be presented to the City
Council upon completion of Phase 1.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt #he Resolution Approving an Agreement With Lew Edwards Group (Lead
Consultan#) For Evaluation of Opportunities to Enhance Local Revenues
~
Submitted By:
Administrative Services Director
~
Reviewed By:
Assistant City Manager
~~~ ~~~
~
DESCRiPTiON:
The City Council adopted a Fiscal Year 2009-2010 high priority goal to "undertake voter opinion
research to determine community support for a revenue measure targeting resident valued
enhancements" (Goal I-A-3). As previously discussed in the 2009/2010 Budget Message, the
City faces several fscal challenges this year and into the foreseeable future, including:
• Declining property tax and sales tax revenue, the City's two major sources of funding for
operations;
• The escaiation of the City's public safety (including Police and Fire) operating costs. In
just the past seven years, the cost of public safety has increased 100 percent;
• Increased operating costs associated with new/added parks and infrastructure. Fallon
Sports Park is projected to add approximately $350,000 in annual operating costs;
• Replacement and repair costs for aging infrastructure and city facilities and the
maintenance costs for new infrastructure and streets;
• Unfunded mandates and regulatory requirements, including managing and treating storm
water;
• Balancing the desire for completion of major new facilities funded from Development
Fees, which are forecasted to be collected at a much slower rate than in the past; and
• The need for resources to provide staffing that will maintain service levels as the City
grows (in Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Budget City Staff positions were reduced by over 10%).
In addition to the City's current financial issues, the State of California continues to balance its
books on the backs of local government. This year, Sacramento plans on °borrowing" $2.4
million from the City of Dublin and the future raids remain unclear.
Dublin's fiscal situation is not unique, nor is the City Council's desire to assessment the
feasibility of revenue enhancements. In fact, to protect local funds, many cities throughout the
State are proactively exploring locai revenue measures that cannot be borrowed by the State
government and which may add additiona! diversity to the local revenue base.
Process To Solicit Consultants
Staff reviewed information presented at local govemment conferences on key elements
required from professional consultants. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was developed based
upon this information, as well as samples obtained from other agencies. It was envisioned that
Consultants responding may have a Team Approach focused on two areas (Polling Expe~tise
and Communications Strategy). Staff requested that the proposa! identify a°Lead Consultant~ if
this were the case. The RFP envisioned that the approach to services would identify work to be
performed in at least two major phases: ~) Voter Opinion Research specific to the City of Dublin
and 2) Funding Options Strategy and Communications Services. In accordance with State (aws
the communicatians services must adhere to public information standards and not advocate a
ballot measure.
~n September 14, 2009, the RFP was distributed to 10 firms with expertise in one or both of the
areas of focus. Firms were given an opportunity to submit questions or requests for
clarificativn. A response to questions submitted was distributed to interested firms on
September 23, 2009 and the deadline for submitting a proposal was September 29, 2009. The
City received a total of seven proposa(s (see Attachment 1). Five consisted of Project Teams
representing the focus areas. One proposal was from a firm which had an affiliated company
~ ~, ~~~
~ ~
with expertise in polling and one proposal oniy recommended a polling firm but did not include
specific responses to information on polling.
Staff established an internal review Team which included: Administrative Services Director;
Assistant to the City Manager - Economic Development / Public lnformation Officer; Assistant
Director of Parks and Community Services; and Senior Administrative Analyst - Budget. All of
the responses were reviewed to determine those which best met the City's needs, using the
following criteria:
i. Quality and completeness of the proposal
Proposer's experience with the specific element {Voter Opinion Polling and / or
Revenue Strategy Development 8~ Communications), including the experience
of staff to be assigned to the project, as well as the Proposer's engagements
of similar scope and complexity;
iii. Proposer's ability to schedule and efficiently perform the work;
iv. Proposer's prior record of performance with the City or others; and
v. Cost Proposal and Hours.
Based upon this review, two Project Teams were determined to have best addressed the City's
needs and presented extensive experience in similar engagements. The two teams were
invited to an interview which was conducted on Oc#ober 9, 2009.
The intemal Staff team, which had done the initial screening of proposals, was joined by the
Assistant City Manager to conduct the personal interviews of the two Project Teams. The
Teams selected to participate in this phase of the setection process were:
A. The Lew Edwards Group (LEG) -(Oakland CA - Lead Consuitant)
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, & Associates (FMMA) -(Oakland CA - Sub-Consultant
Opinion Research)
Primary Staffing:
Lew Edwards Grou~ - Catherine Lew, President & CEO
FMMA - David Metz, Partner
B Godbe Research -(San Mateo CA - L.ead Consultant)
Tramutola (Oakland CA - Sub-Consu(tant Communications)
Primary Staffing:
Godbe - Co-Project Managers Bryan Godbe, President and Dr. Alice Chan
Tramutola - Bonnie Moss, Sr. Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
and Charles Heath, Senior Vic~ President and Senior Consultant
Based on the information presented in the proposals, as well as the interview presentation,
Staff is recommending the selection of Lew Edwards Group for this professional secvices
engagement.
~ ~ l~
~
~
Backqround and Experience Offered Bv Lew Edwards Group P~oposal
The team presented as part of the Lew Edwards Group (LEG) proposal has extensive
experience with city clients in the Bay Area, as well as throughout the State of Califomia. The
revenue options available to a City are different than those typically faced by other government
entities such as special districts and schools. The LEG/FMMA Team represents that they have
assisted agencies in obtaining voter approval of over $27 billion in revenue measures. Among
the agencies this Team has worked for is City of San Ramon (Landscaping 8~ Lighting District
lncrease); City of Palo Alto (Library Funding Measure); City of Gilroy (Library Funding Measure).
In addition both firms have worked individually for many agencies statewide. The types of
revenue measures have varied including, sales tax, utility user tax, Transient Occupancy Tax,
as well as general purpose taxes. Ninety-three percent of the measures they have assisted
with have been approved by the voters_
The Lew Edwards Group proposal is broken down as follows:
Phase 1- Assessment Pianning and Research
As proposed the effort wiA begin with an assessment of unique issues faced by the City and the
review of background materials and information. Catherine Lew as part of the initial
assessment will conduc# individual interviews with City Councif as well as working with the City
Manager and a cross-section of input from Department Directors. This element of the
information gathering is essential to formulate an understanding of what the potential needs are
for the Dublin community.
With this information and input the Consultants will work with City Staff to develop the questions
2o be inciuded in the baseline survey. Given their extensive background working with
communities throughout Caiifomia the Consultants will develop and conduct a statistically valid
survey. In order to protect the validity of the survey results the Consul#ants have advised
against public disclosure of survey questions in advance. However, it will be based on the
themes and background gathered in the initial research. The survey wil! gather information on
general perceptions of City services and voter concems. In addition there will be specific
testing of options related to potential revenue enhancement. The survey will be designed to be
approximate~ 20 minutes in length and they propose to conduct a sample size of 400 likely
November 209 0 voters.
Upon conclusion of the survey LEG will prepare a report that will be presented to the City
Councii. After the completion of the survey a formal action by the City Council will be required
to decide what future steps will be taken. The Phase 1 Report is expected to offer
recommendations and possibly alternatives that can be considered based on interpretation of
the survey results.
Some agencies conduct this type of research on a regular basis in order to have quantitative
base line data regarding the locai perception of City Services and how they are valued. The
L.EG proposal identified specifically that tne City may elect to forego any further services upon
ihe completion of Phase 1. This element has also been incorporated into the proposed
Agreement. Upon presentation to the City Council of the Phase 1 results, there will be the
opportunity to terminate any further work associated with this agreement. The total cost
negotiated for Phase 1 services is $32,500. These costs provide for the following services:
~ ~I J
Lead Consultant $10,000
(Project Management and Facilitation; Oversight of Survey implementation; Independent
analysis of survey findings, Developme~t of Strategic Assessment and
Recommendations.)
Base Line Public Opinion Research Survev $22,500
(400 respondent sample, 20 minute interviews, top-line survey results, full cross-
tabulated results, graphic presentation of key findings and final report.)
TOTAL PHASE 1 $32,500
Phase 2- Develoa a Comarehensiv_e Communications Plan
Upon completion of Phase 1 the Consultants will present a recommended communications
plan. In part the design of this plan will rely heavily on what is learned from the polling
regarding voter perceptions of issues and City services. The opportunity to have communication
messages developed to specifically address our community will further efforts to assure that the
Iocat public is well informed and has an opportunity to obtain important information. This work
would be carried out primariiy by LEG and is envisioned to span over the period from January 1,
2010 through approximately July 31, 2010.
The services wilf include assistance in defining key messages and developing a variety of
communications pieces, which may incfude: brochures, website information, development of
speakers bureau material and training, development of PowerPoint presentations, collabo~ation
with Staff and City Attorney on reviewing all materials, etc. The cost for this phase of services is
$31,000 (Professional fees of $30,000 plus reimbursable costs of $1,000).
Phase 2 - Optional Services
If the City decides to continue with Phase 2 there are potentially optional services tha# could be
undertaken as part of a coordinated effort to refine the City communication efforts. One of
these efforts is the development and distribution of direct mail information thai shares what has
~een learned from the polling and helps provide additional education for residents about the key
issues that are faced by the City_ Lew Edwards Group has found direct mai! as one element of
a public information effort. An estimate of the cost to produce and distribute three mailings is
$35,000. If later in the fiscal year the City were at the point of considering a specific revenue
measure, it may also be desirable to conduct a more focused poll prior to the City Council
taking action to place the revenue measure on the ballot. It is envisioned that this would be a
shorter interview with an estimated cost of $17,500. None of the optional services are required
as part of the cuRent proposed agreement and this would be further evaluated after the Phase
1 results are presented to the City Council.
~dOTICiNG REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
~Vone required.
~-TTACHMENTS: 1. Listing of Firms Submitting Proposals
2. Resolution approving agreement with Lew Edwards Group
' (Lead Consultant) for evaluation of opportunities to enhance
local revenue.
~~,
~
~ OF Djl~~~ MINOF HE CITY OF Dt1g0 NNCIL
~ 111
~~'~~• 8'1, REGULAR MEETING - Februarv 2, 2010
'r,\ .~w•I
CLOSED SESSION
A ciosed session was heid at 6:30:41 PM, regarding:
I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL---ANTICIPATED LITiGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: 1 case
Facts and circumstances: Letter from Robert A. Bothman, Inc. on the Fallon Sports
Park Phase 1 Project, dated November 20, 2009.
II. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -- EXISTING LITIGATION
Government Code Section 54956.9, subdivision (a)
Name of Case: City of Dublin v. PKII Dublin Retail Center L.P. et al, Alameda County
Superior Court, Case No. RG08390521
•~
A regular meeting of the Dublin City Council was held on Tuesday, February 2, 2010, in the
Council Chambers of the Dublin Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:01:05 PM,
by Mayor Sbranti.
• `-
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Councilmembers Biddle, Hildenbrand, Schoiz, and Mayor Sbranti
ABSENT: Councilmember Hart
•
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited by the City Council, Staff and those present.
~
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTION
Mayor Sbranti stated there was no reportable action during Closed Session.
•~
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~
VOLUME 29 ~~
REGULAR MEETING ~ ~
February 2, 2010 ~~
c~~.~ .~
J~ ~ /;~
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Public Comments
7:01:41 PM 3.3
No comments were made by any member of the public at this time.
•~
CONSENT CALENDAR
7:01:50 PM Items 4.1 through 4.7
On motion of Cm. Scholz, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand (Vm. Hildenbrand abstaining from
voting on Item 4.2) and by unanimous vote (Cm. Hart absent), the City Council took the
following actions:
Approved (4.1) Minutes - None
Adopted (4.2 600-60);
RESOLUTION NO. 11 -10
ACCEPTANCE (~F IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH TRACT 7539,
SILVERA RANCH PHASE 2(PFEIFFER RANCH INVESTORS II, INC.)
AND APPROVING REGULATORY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
Adopted (4.3 600-60);
RESOLUTION NO. 12 -10
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH MCE CORPORATION
FOR PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Received {4.4 330-50) Monthly Financial reports for July through November 2009, as
authorized by Section 41004 of the California Government Code.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 2
VOLUME 29
REGULAR MEETING ~` ~,
February 2, 2010 ~~~
G,,,~~„~
ll ~ l %'
~
Adopted (4.5 450-20)
ORDINANCE NO. 3 -10
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.12 (ZONiNG DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED
USES), CHAPTER 8.76 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING) AND CHAPTER 8.116
(ZONING CLEARANCE) AND THE CREATION OF CHAPTER 8.66 (LARGE FAMILY DAY
CARE HOMES), ZOA 09-OQ3
and
ORDINANCE NO. 4 -10
AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 8.70 (RECREATIONAL FACiLiTIES
(INDOOR)) RELATING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTS
ZOA 09-002
Received (4.6 320-30) Quarterly Investment Report for 2"d Quarter 2009-2010
Approved (4.7 300-40) Check Issuance Reports and Electronic Funds Transfers
•
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
•_
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
•~
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Green Initiatives Task Force Appointments
7:02:37 PM 7.1 (530-10)
Administrative Analyst Roger Bradley presented the Staff Report and advised that the City
Council would consider appaintments to the Green Initiatives Task Force to study the
establishment of green or environmental initiatives for the City to consider for future
implementation. Green initiatives were defined as those activities that provide positive
environmental benefits to the community by reducing waste, decreasing emissions, or
conserving resources and are feasible, effective and affordable.
On motion of Cm. Biddle, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote (Cm. Hart
absent), the City Council approved the appointments to the Green Initiatives Task Force.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCfL MINUTES 3
VOLUME 29 ~~
REGULAR MEETING 19~~,
February 2, 2010
~~,~ s
/~~ ~-~,
~~-
NEW BUSINESS
St. Patrick's Dav Parade
7:05:29 PM . 8.1 (950-40)
Environmental Specialist Martha Aja presented the Staff Report and advised that the Annual
Dublin Lions Club St. Patrick's Day Parade would be held on Saturday, March 13, 2010. Each
year, the Dublin City Council participated in the parade. Last year, Staff coordinated a float entry
for the City Councif. In past years, the City Council parade entry had included such activities as
decorated golf carts and riding in Alameda County's Antique Fire Truck with the Alameda
County Fire Chief as the driver of the vehicle. The City Councif would consider alternatives for
participating in the 2Q10 St. Patrick's Day parade.
The City Council directed Staff to proceed with use of a fire truck for the City Council for the
2010 St. Patrick's Day parade.
•~
Community Survey Results and Recommendation to Start Phase 2 of the
Proiect Scope, lncludina Additional Communitv Outreach and Education
7:09:23 PM 8.2 (600-30)
City Manager Pattillo presented the Staff Report and advised that the City Council had
established a High Priority objective to "effectively communicate and solicit input from the
community regarding City services and activities." In October 2009, the City Council authorized
a Community Survey to better understand citizen concerns, issues and perceptions. The City
Council would be presented with the results of this Community Survey, as well as a
recommendation from Staff to continue the community engagement and outreach work.
Shakari Byerly, Senior Researcher with Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, discussed
project goals which included independently assessing the community's perspective on budget
needs and fiscal delivery challenges in order to protect and maintain quality public services.
Survey findings and observations included: Respondents were highly pleased with the City's
quality of life and also with the quality of City services and a majority were satisfied with the
City's management of its finances; there was clear support for the City considering certain local
revenue solutions to protect funding from being taken by Sacramento, and to provide more
security for the City's financial future. Respondents were interested in these budget and service
issues and further information and communications on these issues was recommended to keep
the public informed about the City's efforts to protect and maintain essential services.
DUBLIN C1TY COUNCiL MINUTES 4
VOLUME 29 ~,~~
REGULAR MEETING 19, ~~~„
February 2, 2010 ~~~~ %
G :~~,oNS
I~
/'7
Catherine Lew, President and CEO of Lew Edwards Group, discussed the survey's Conclusions
and Recommendations including: respondents' sa#isfaction with the quality of services that the
City provided; high satisfaction level of City's fiscal stewardship; and the possibility of educating
citizens. She also discussed Suggested Communication Vehicles, such as interactive
communications, updating the City's website and articles in the City newsletter, informational
presentations by City service providers and continued surveys in the future.
Cm. Scholz asked if the targeted group of the survey were registered voters.
Ms. Lew stated yes, it was a random sample of citizens, but they were from a pool of registered
voters.
The City Council discussed moving forward with Phase 2. Comrnunication was needed with the
citizens.
On motion of Cm. Biddle, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote (Cm. Hart absent),
the City Council received the Community Survey Results from the Consultant Team; authorized
proceeding with Phase 2 of the Project, including the Additional Community Outreach and
Education; and approved the Budget Change.
•
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Annual Audit for the
Fiscal Year Endinq June 30, 2009 and Extension of Aareement with Caaoricci and Larson
7:31:38 PM 8.3 (310-10)
Administrative Services Director Paul Rankin presented the Staff Report and advised that the
City of Dublin had compiled and published its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR),
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. This report included financial statements prepared by
City Staff along with the audit prepared by Caporicci and Larson (C&L), the independent
auditors selected by the City Council. The CAFR was a report which encompassed information
beyond the minimum requirements. The Auditors had provided a"clean opinion" based on their
review. The report had also been reviewed by the City Council ad-hoc Audit Subcommittee
comprised of Councilmember Biddle and Councilmember Hart.
Mayor Sbranti asked how many years the City had used the firm Caporicci and Larson.
Mr. Rankin stated the firm had been utilized by the City six years in a row. With next year, it
would be seven.
Mayor Sbranti recommended that the City consider selecting a different firm for future years to
have a"fresh" set of eyes review City financial information.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ~
VOLUME 29 ~~
REGULAR MEETING ~~~_} ~„
February 2, 2010
~~~,/
l~ l`~
Mr. Rankin stated the firm would include new field staff.
~n motion of Vm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote (Cm. Hart
absent), the City Council received the reports and confirmed the establishment of the fund
balances as stated for the year ending June 30, 2009; and authorized the City Manager to
execute an extended Agreement with Caporicci and Larson in an amount not to exceed
$40,000.
•
Community and CDBG Grants
Committee Recommendations for the Use of CDBG Funds for Fiscal Year 2010-2011
7:39:31 PM 8.4 (480-3Q)
Administrative Aide Gaylene Burkett presented the Staff Report and advised that in order to
accomplish the Fiscai Year 2009-2010 City Council High Priority goal of "developing a
procedure to combine the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and the Community
Support Grant process", the grant application process was changed this year. The grant
application process included the requirement for agency presentations before the Community
and CDBG Grants Committee.
Vm. Hifdenbrand clarified why particular requests were not recommended by the Grants
Committee for funding. YMCA's request for chairs did not meet technical requirements. In
regard to the Lion Center for the Blind's request, they could not communicate how the program
would benefit the City. Before the City gave them money, they should have done some
research regarding benefits for Dublin.
On motion of Vm. Hildenbrand, seconded by Cm. Scholz and by unanimous vote (Cm. Hart
absent), the City Council received the Staff presentation; approved the Community and CDBG
Grants Committee's recommendation to fund the following agencies; directed S#aff to submit
applications to the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) for $81,509 in CDBG funding for Fiscal Year 2010-2011: Axis Community Health $4,844,
Bay Area Community Services $6,557, Open Heart Kitchen $10,000, Senior Support Program of
the Tri-Valley $11,594, Spectrum Community Services - Meals on Wheels $6,469, Tri-Valley
Haven Domestic Violence/Homeless Shelter $15,000, Housing Rehabilitation (required by the
County) $15,018, Annual Contribution toward Sojourner House $5,427, Program Administration
$6,600, for a total of $ 81,509; and should there be a decrease or an increase in CDBG
allocations, Staff recommended that the percentage of the decrease or increase be distributed
evenly across all of the programs that did not have mandatory set contributions up to the
maximum funding requested by each agency. Should the increase exceed the maximum
funding requests, Staff recommended placing any remaining funds into the Hausing
Rehabilitation Program which is run by the County of Alameda Department of Housing and
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6
VOLUME 29 ~
REGULAR MEETING 191 ~~,
February 2, 2010 ~~
~'~,~~~
/.~ ~ / ~
~
Community Development and offer Dublin residents paint grants, accessibility grants for grab
bars and handicap ramps and major rehabilitation loans to homes that need new roofs, kitchen
and bathroom upgrades, energy conservation upgrades and normal maintenance for older
homes.
•'
FY 2011 Aaproariations Request for the Bav Area Biosolids to Enerqv Coalition
7: 51:14 P M 8. 5(1000-70)
Environmenta! Specialist Martha Aja presented the Staff Report and advised that the San
Francisco Bay Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition was requesting $2 million in federal
assistance to support the development of an innovative and sustainable energy production
project. This Coalition was comprised of 16 small, medium and large public wastewater
treatment agencies, one of which was the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). The
Coalition was requesting funding fram the Department of Energy to support the development of
this innovative energy production project which had the potential to convert biosolids and other
biafuels into clean and affordable energy.
On motion of Cm. Scholz, seconded by Vm. Hildenbrand and by unanimous vote (Cm. Hart
absent), the City Council supported the Fiscal Year 2011 Appropriations Request for the Bay
Area Biosolids to Energy Coalition and signed the letters of support to Senator Boxer and
Senator Feinstein.
OTHER BUSINESS Brief /NFORMAT/ON ONLY reports from Counci! and/or Staff,
including Committee Reports and Reports by Council related to meetings attended at
City expense (AB 1234)
7:53:36 PM
Cm. Scholz stated she attended the State of the City address. She attended the East Bay
Division meeting and the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Fellowship Breakfast.
Cm. Biddle stated he also attended the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Fellowship Breakfast and the
East Bay Division meeting, as well as the Chamber open house, and the Ilene Misheloff
memorial walk.
Vm. Hildenbrand stated Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) was getting ready
to do construction on the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) bus stops. City residents would get door
hangers in the neighborhoods where construction would take place. She attended a LAVTA
meeting; she also met with Alameda County Transit Improvement Authority (ACTIA) regarding
Measure B3.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 7
VOLUME 29 ~
REGULAR MEETING d =~
February 2, 2010 `~ ~
~..~.,~m
~~~ ~~I
~
Mayor Sbranti stated he spoke at the Census Grand Opening and that participation in the
census was important. The Joint City Council/Commission Workshop had been productive. He
had spoken at the Rotary Club. He attended the Economic Development meeting and the State
of the City lunch. He also attended the Unhappy Hour Forum. He attended the Congestion
Management Authority (CMA) meeting. CMA had voted to show interest in merging with ACTIA.
He also attended an ACTIA meeting and met with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). He asked
Staff to look at development agreements and how they are structured.
City Manager Pattillo asked if this meant bringing back development agreement information to
the City Council in the form of a Staff Report with Staff recommendations.
Mayor Sbranti confirmed that was his request.
ADJOURNMENT
10.1
_ ~-. ~
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at
8:05:38 PM in memory of Staff Sgt. Sean Diamond and our fallen troops.
Minutes prepared by Caroline P. Soto, City Clerk.
/ v" ~~-
~.s~--- ~~°~..~
ATTEST: ~ ~~'`~J
Mayor
City Clerk
~~
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 8
VOLUME 29 ~
REGULAR MEETING 19` ~"
February 2, 2010
``,._ __,.~
_ __ .-, 7~~ z~, ~ r~r, ~
1vC? ~%iti;~rlrrt, C)t~',alir~. C:<3~i(«~i~,i~t ;?=l~;ii~;;
~~ /1'~)~`~' ~.
~ ^
P1. T K T ~ .
u'~I i n' ~ Esser~t~c~l ~erv~~es
c~~ [~
The ecc~nomic recession has already im ~~ ~~~ ~n~xt~year and in the yec~~~to ~come
that #he City's budget ~+il1 be greatly a
VJith a projected de#icit o~ up to $~.br~ ~~~n#o,~fhe'City s~ eeki~g~yo~r~ i put on
the continued budget problems in Sac PpY
the lacal services tha# are essential to you. {Check aff that a f)
Cl Keeping local fire stations open
^ Maintaining currenf level of pflliee profeetian and crime prevenfion
i;~ Maintaining nnd irnproving ~"~~~viabilit~of #he ~~y edical response times
p Ma~ntaining long-term f~nancia Y uards
CI Preventing cuts to school safefy of4icers and erossing 9
p Preve~ti+r~g decreases in sworn firefightes pasitions
~ Mc~intalning Youth after-schoo4 and senior progranis
~7 Maintasning streets ar~c1 repairing potha{es
Ci Maintaining ~ify parks
^ Qther_
^ 1 }~e~ye the fallowing questions:
Opfional:
___----
i~~lame:
Aclclress: ,_._
City/State/Zip:
~ Email: ~
Phone:
Take this surr~ey online t ww,ci.dublin.ca,us
You may als~ drvp it of~ at any City faeitity.Fax: {925) $33-8741
City nf Dublin Phone; (925} 833-b651~
Atfiention; Ciiy Nlanager
l Ofl Civic Piaza, Dublm, CA 945b8
ATTACHMENT 2