REVISED AGENDA CITY OF UNION CITY SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING WITH NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Transcription

1 I. CALL TO ORDER REVISED AGENDA CITY OF UNION CITY SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING WITH NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Tuesday, April 29, :00 P.M. RUGGIERI SENIOR CENTER DINING HALL Alvarado-Niles Road Union City CA I.a I.b Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Mayor Carol Dutra Vernaci Vice Mayor Lorrin Ellis Councilmember Emily Duncan Councilmember Pat Gacoscos Councilmember Jim Navarro Board President Jonas Dino Board Clerk Michelle Matthews Board Member Linda Canlas Board Member Sarabjit Cheema Board Member Michael Ritchie II. III. PUBLIC COMMENT Comments from the audience regarding the topic under consideration will be received. Persons wishing to speak must complete a speaker card available from the City Clerk. INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION A. Presentation and discussion of current interagency collaborations a. Kids Zone Initiative/Teen Center Project b. Joint Facility Use Agreements c. Operational Cooperation B. Discussion of Potential 2014 Ballot Measures a. City Sales Tax Reauthorization (2010 Measure AA) b. District Facility Bond c. Potential for Interagency Collaboration i. Public Information Effort ii. School Bond Allocation for Teen Center iii. City Allocation for School Resource Officer(s) iv. Discussion of Potential Joint Use Project for the Big Green at Logan High School C. Other Collaboration Opportunities Open Discussion IV. ADJOURNMENT A complete agenda packet is available for review at City Hall or our website Any writings or documents provided to a majority of City Council members and Board Members regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the City Clerk s Counter at City Hall, located at Alvarado-Niles Road, Union City, California, during normal business hours.

2 Background Information March 11, 2014, City Council Staff Report. page 3 City Council Resolution No page 7 April 15, 2014, New Haven Unified School District Board Agenda Item (slide show).... page 9 2

3 DATE: March 11, 2014 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council David Glasser, Administrative Services Director Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of a Sales Tax Add-On Measure for the November 4, 2014 General Election Ballot and the Use of a Consultant for Polling and Determining Rate Structure and Duration of the Sales Tax-Add On BACKGROUND The Measure AA Sales Tax Add-On was approved by the electorate of Union City on November 2, The Tax went into effect on April 1, 2011 with a sunset date of March 31, The Tax is a half-cent Sales Tax Add-On which increased the City s total sales tax rate to 9.50%. The Tax currently generates approximately $4.3 million per year for the City s General Fund. Since its inception April 1, 2011 and through December 31, 2013 (2.75 years), Measure AA has generated $10.6 million for Union City or an average $3.9 million per year. DISCUSSION Staff has presented City Council with several reports over the past year detailing the impacts of Measure AA. Based on those reports and discussions with Council, staff now requests authorization to prepare a ballot measure for a new Sales Tax Add-On. This ballot measure would be placed on the November 4, 2014 General Election Ballot and would replace the current Measure AA Sales Tax Add-On after its expiration on March 31, Since the November election is a General Election with Councilmembers also scheduled for re-election, only 50% + 1 majority approval of the electorate is needed to pass any new Sales Tax Add-On. Representatives of the New Haven Unified School District have indicated the District s desire to place a facilities/technology bond measure on the November ballot. At the regular meeting City/School District Partnership Committee, the members (Councilmembers Duncan and Navarro and Board members Diño and Matthews) discussed a desire to have the entire City Council and Board of Education meet together in a joint work session to discuss how the two measures might complement rather than compete with each other. The committee suggested April 29, a fifth Tuesday, as a day for such a work session to occur. The Board is meeting at the same time as our Council meeting to discuss their bond measure and the possibility of a joint work session with the Council. It is anticipated that we will have polling information that can be discussed at a joint meeting. 3

4 City Council Staff Report Sales Tax Add-On Authorization March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 4 The following provides a preliminary election timeline: March 11, 2014: Council authorization for staff to prepare ballot measure (April 29, 2014: Joint Work Session with New Haven Unified School District Board) June 24, 2014: Adopt resolution to conduct General Municipal Election and place measure on ballot. Approve ballot language, type of tax, tax rate and method of collection June 30 July 14: Publish Notice of Election July 22: Direct arguments for or against and City Attorney s Impartial Analysis. July 23 August 1: 10-day public examination period for arguments August 1: Rebuttal arguments due August 2 11: 10-day public examination period for election materials August 8: Last day to file with County Board of Supervisors resolution requesting consolidation and Last day to publish Notice of Measure to be voted on August 13: Last day to withdraw measure from ballot November 4: General Election In order to develop a strong ballot measure that receives required electorate support and provides the City with adequate revenue to meet its operating needs, staff also requests Council authorization to solicit proposals from consultants that are knowledgeable in ballot measure polling and development, specifically as it relates to Sales Tax Add-Ons. The consultant would assist the City in polling the electorate concerning acceptable tax rates and duration of a Sales Tax Add-On measure. After polling was completed, the consultant would meet with City staff to discuss those results. A preliminary Sales Tax Add-On measure would be developed in coordination with the City Attorney for City Council consideration. Staff will request proposals from several consultants to determine which ones have the best background and expertise for the City s specific needs. As a reminder, Council will need to adopt a ballot measure by June 24, Thus, it is critical that polling, research, and ballot measure development be performed expediently over the next several months. The enclosed resolution will authorize staff to prepare a ballot measure and solicit proposals from consultants that are knowledgeable in Sales Tax Add-On ballot measure polling and development. While the rate and duration of a new Sales Tax Add-On does not need to be finalized as of yet, the following table provides Council with a comparison of current Sales Tax Add-On measures in the Bay Area: 4

5 City Council Staff Report Sales Tax Add-On Authorization March 11, 2014 Page 3 of 4 City County Rate Start Date End Date Duration Union City Alameda 0.50% years Albany Alameda 0.50% years San Leandro Alameda 0.25% years Concord Contra 0.50% years Costa El Cerrito Contra 0.50% Not Applicable Indefinite Costa El Cerrito Contra 0.50% years Costa Hercules Contra 0.50% years Costa Moraga Contra 1.00% years Costa Orinda Contra 0.50% years Costa Pinole Contra 0.50% Not Applicable Indefinite Costa Pittsburgh Contra 0.50% (0.25% years Costa after 5 years) Richmond Contra 0.50% Not Applicable Indefinite Costa San Pablo Contra 0.50% (0.25% years Costa after 5 years) Fairfax Marin 0.50% years Novato Marin 0.50% years San Rafael Marin 0.50% years Campbell Santa Clara 0.25% Not Applicable Indefinite Half Moon San Mateo 0.50% years Bay San Mateo San Mateo 0.25% years In addition to these, Hayward is considering a ballot measure to establish a ½-cent sales tax and San Leandro is considering asking voters to add another ¼-cent to their current ¼-cent sales tax. Several cities in the Bay Area, including some of the cities listed above, also have voter-approved utility users taxes. FISCAL IMPACT: The Measure AA Sales Tax Add-On currently generates approximately $4.3 million in revenue for the City of Union City annually. This number is predicted to grow into the future. Council authorization will allow staff to develop a ballot measure for the November 4, 2014 election which will seek to continue this revenue stream with a new Sales Tax Add-On measure. Absent passage of a new Sales Tax-Add On measure, the City will lose approximately 10% of 5

6 City Council Staff Report Sales Tax Add-On Authorization March 11, 2014 Page 4 of 4 its General Fund revenue annually and be required to consider alternative measures which may include significant expenditure reductions. The attached resolution also asks Council although authorizes the City Manager to spend up to $25,000 to hire a consultant to conduct a comprehensive poll regarding the proposed measure. The money will come from the Administrative Contingency Reserve. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution authorizing staff to prepare a ballot measure for a Sales Tax Add-On to be placed on the November 4, 2014 General Election Ballot and for staff to solicit proposals from consultants that are knowledgeable in Sales Tax Add-On ballot measure polling and development. We will return to Council at a later date to discuss the proposed duration for a new sales tax measure, after we receive polling data. We are also requesting Council direction on a joint City/School District work session. Prepared by: Will Fuentes Revenue and Budget Manager Submitted by: David Glasser Director of Administrative Services Approved by: Larry Cheeves City Manager 6

7 RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNION CITY AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF A SALES TAX ADD- ON MEASURE FOR THE NOVEMBER 4, 2014, GENERAL ELECTION BALLOT AND THE USE OF A CONSULTANT FOR POLLING AND DETERMINING THE RATE STRUCTURE AND DURATION OF THE SALES TAX ADD-ON WHEREAS, Measure AA Sales Tax Add-On was approved by Union City on November 2, 2010; and the electorate of WHEREAS, the Tax went into effect on April 1, March 31, 2015; and 2011, with a sunset date of WHEREAS, the Tax is a half-cent Sales Tax Add- On which increased the City's total sales tax rate to 9. 50%; and WHEREAS, the Tax currently generates approximately $ 4. 3 million per year for the City' s General Fund; and WHEREAS, since its inception on April 1, 2011, and through December 31, 2013, ( years), Measure AA has generated $ million for Union City or an average $ 3. 9 million per year; and WHEREAS, staff requests authorization to prepare a ballot measure for a new Sales Tax Add- On to be placed on the November 4, 2014, General Election Ballot; and WHEREAS, the new Sales Tax Add- On will replace the Measure AA Sales Tax Add- On which will expire March 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, staff requests authorization to solicit proposals from consultants that are knowledgeable in Sales Tax Add- On ballot measure polling and development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Union City hereby authorizes staff to prepare a ballot measure for a new Sales Tax Add- On to be placed on the November 4, 2014, General Election Ballot; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to solicit proposals from consultants that are knowledgeable in Sales Tax to $ 25,000 from the Add- On ballot measure polling and development, and to expend up Administrative Contingency reserve for this project. 7

8 Resolution No PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Union City at a regular meeting held on March 11, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Duncan, Gacoscos, and Navarro, Vice Mayor Ellis, Mayor Dutra- Vernaci NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVED: r CAROL DU Mayor A-VERNACI ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: i RE EE ELLIOTT BENJAMI. REY II City Clerk City Attorney r 8

9 NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: April 15, 2014 Subject: Proposed General Obligation Bond Election of 2014 Voter and Demographic Study, Essential #6 Department: Business Action Requested: The Board of Education will be presented with a voter and demographic study conducted by Consultant Connell Lindh for the proposed Bond Election of Discussion: At its meeting on March 11, 2014, the Board approved a contract with Connell Lindh to provide consulting services to the District for studies and/or needs assessments that analyze the district s ability to call for a general obligation bond election. A comprehensive voter and demographic study was conducted to analyze past voter participation in three specific elections, June 2012, May 2011, and November The analysis includes cross-referencing of voter lists with available parent information in the district. A copy of the study is attached. Financial Summary: Prepared By: Akur Varadarajan Department Approval: Akur Varadarajan Interim Co-Superintendent Approval: Arlando Smith & Akur Varadarajan H:\BOARD AGENDA ITEMS\ \10.1 APR \Voter Study.docx 9

10 Voter file Demography The voter file used for this study was obtained from the county on March 31, The voter file used for this study contains 35,403 voter records. The parent file used for this study was obtained from the District on March 22, The names and addresses in parent file were cleaned and standardized in order to compare the parent and voter files/ 10 1

11 The comparison of the parent and vote files identified 8,945 voters living in parent household. 25.3% of the entire file. Parent, 25.3% Nonparent, 74.7% Most voters in the District are 25 or older. 30% Age Count 18 to 24 3,114 20% 17.8% 17.1% 18.0% 17.9% 20.5% 25 to 34 6, to 44 6,046 10% 8.8% 45 to 54 6, to 64 6, & older 7,235 0% 18 to to to to to and older 11 2

12 Almost half of the voters in the District are 0 of 5 or 1 of 5 voters. 30% 25.4% 24.1% Voter Count Activity 0 of 5 9,008 20% 17.4% 13.8% 16.6% 1 of 5 8,521 2 of 5 6,166 10% 3 of 5 4,875 4 of 5 5,753 5 of 5 1,080 Elections: 11/12, 6/12, May, 11, Nov/10 and 6/10 0% 3.1% 0 of 5 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 Almost half of the voters in the District are permanent absentees. PAV Status Count Not PAV 17,281 PAV 18,122 Not PAV, 51.2% PAV, 48.8% 12 3

13 Just over half the voters in the District are registered Democrats. 60% 50% 54.5% Party Count 40% Dem 19,309 Rep 4,598 Declined 10,202 to state Other 1,294 30% 20% 10% 0% 28.8% 13.0% 3.6% Dem Rep Declined Other Just over half the voters in the District live east of I Party Count East 19, 328 West 16,075 West of I 880, 45.4% East of I 880, 54.6% The District was divided into two areas using Census tracts and blocks. 13 4

14 There are more female voters among both parents and non-parents. 60% 50% 40% 47.7% 44.4% 55.6% 52.4% 30% 20% 10% 0% Male Female Non parents Parents 40% There are more parents between 35 and 54 30% than non-parents. There are more nonparents 55 and older 20% than among parents. 8.0% 10% 26.3% 26.7% 23.9% 20.4% 18.7% 15.1% 13.9% 15.1% 11.2% 10.5% 10.3% 0% 18 to to to to to and older Non parents Parents 14 5

15 There are very similar numbers of parents and non-parents in each of the voter activity groups. Elections: 11/12, 6/12, May, 11, Nov/10 and 6/10 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 25.9% 25.3% 26.2% 23.3% 18.2% 17.2% 13.3% 17.0% 13.9% 14.2% 3.3% 2.3% 0 of 5 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 Non parents Parents There are very similar percentages of parents and non-parents are permanent absentees. 60% 50% 40% 30% 52.5% 52.6% 47.5% 47.4% 20% 10% 0% PAV Not PAV Non parents Parents 15 6

16 Parents are just slightly more likely to be Democrats than are non-parents. Nonparents are just slightly more likely to be Republicans than are parents. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 57.2% 53.6% 28.6% 29.4% 14.0% 10.1% 3.7% 3.4% Dem Rep Declined Other Non parents Parents Parents are more likely to live west of I-880. Non-parents are more likely to live east of I % 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 56.2% 49.8% 50.2% 43.8% East of I 880 West of I 880 Non parents Parents 16 7

17 The following slides look at turnout among demographic groups in elections held in June, 2012; May, 2011 and November,

18 18 9

19 19 10

20 20 11

21 21 12

22 1. Parents make up over 25% of the registered voters in the district. This number is higher than most districts in California. 2. As any proposal is prepared for the ballot, the District must be confident that a citizens campaign will be able to execute a significant effort to get parents to vote--as over 50% have voted 1 or 0 times in the past 5 elections. 3. Various bond issuance values and tax rate structures are being evaluated. 4. A public information campaign should focus on the overall facility needs of the district and the importance of parent participation in the election process. 5. A privately funded advocacy campaign will be needed to build support in the community. 6. Before the Board places a proposal on the ballot it must know that a vigorous, well funded citizens campaign will make sure the core population that seems to vote in every election is well informed. 22