|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View Whisman’s school board voted this month to approve the city’s proposal for a new joint use agreement for campus fields, putting the ball back in the city’s court to give the final sign off to a deal that has been the cause of significant tension between the two parties.
School board members voted 4-1, with Bill Lambert dissenting, at a Dec. 7 meeting to approve the agreement, which the City Council had billed as a final “take it or leave it” offer.
The City Council is now expected to consider approving the contract in the first quarter of 2024, city spokesperson Lenka Wright told the Voice in an email.
The joint use agreement lays out how the city and school district will share use and maintenance responsibilities for outdoor spaces on campuses throughout the city.
For decades, the district has offered the public access to its outdoor areas outside of school hours while the city has paid to maintain school fields. The city has also overseen renting fields to sports teams and other community groups when school isn’t in session.
The most recent deal was signed in 2000, and the city and school district have been working for years to reach a new agreement. Those negotiations broke down this year and led to a public rift between the city and school district.
The school district decided to pause the negotiations early this year, and later the City Council voted in September to terminate the current agreement and give the district one final chance to accept the city’s terms, with a year-end deadline.
Under the proposal, the city would have use of recreational spaces on school campuses during certain times when classes aren’t in session.
On school days, the city would generally have use after 5 p.m. at middle schools and 4 p.m. at elementary schools. On holidays, weekends and other times when school isn’t operating, the city’s use would run from 6 a.m. to 30 minutes after sunset (10 p.m. for lighted fields).
During those times, the city would manage facility rentals. If the school district needs its outdoor spaces during the city’s use period, the district’s use would take priority.
The agreement applies to what it calls “recreational areas” on school campuses, which are defined on a site-by-site basis in campus-specific attachments. They generally include the athletic fields and other grassy areas, as well as landscaping, recreational buildings and public restrooms.
The school-specific attachments also lay out city and district maintenance obligations. The city is generally responsible for maintaining the grass and certain other outdoor spaces, paying for electricity and water for irrigation, and picking up trash Saturday-Monday and when school is out. The district is responsible for the trees and for trash on Tuesday-Friday when school is in session.
School district approves the agreement
At its last scheduled meeting of the calendar year, the school board decided to accept the city’s offer despite the tensions that had played out over the past several months.
“I am very optimistic that this puts us on a good foot heading into a new year for our partnership as two agencies that serve the same residents,” board president Devon Conley said. “We are here in service of our community and we want to make sure that we are providing access and facilities that meet our community’s needs.”
Trustees Laura Ramirez Berman and Laura Blakely similarly spoke in support of the agreement and noted the need for good communication between the city and district.
Trustee Chris Chiang said that while he supported approving the joint use agreement, he had “a lot of reservations” about how the process had played out.
“I really don’t want there to be a precedent set for either the city or the school district to set ultimatums of saying … to ‘take this or leave it.’ I hope that we will never do that to the city going forward, and I hope the city will never do that to us again,” Chiang said.
Chiang added that for the JUA to work, both sites will need a “functioning operational relationship” with ongoing communication.
“This JUA won’t mean anything if we have the dysfunction that kind of played out during this process,” Chiang said.
Lambert, the sole dissenting vote, told his colleagues that the city giving the district “an ultimatum to accept a non-negotiable agreement” was a reason in itself not to support it.
However, Lambert said he believed there were stronger reasons for opposition. Lambert identified his biggest concern being that with one year’s written notice, either party can terminate the agreement for one or more school sites without cause.
“Because of that I feel that this agreement is not in the best interests of the public who really need assurance that their open space, sports fields and access to playgrounds … will be secure at least for the tenure of this contract,” Lambert said.
He also objected to the negotiations being held behind closed doors and said he would have liked the deal to be broader, encompassing spaces like multi-use rooms on campuses.
Accompanying policy language prompts city concern
Even as the school board approved the agreement, there were last minute questions and concerns from the city about an accompanying board policy and administrative regulation pertaining to the use and rental of school facilities that the board unanimously passed at the same meeting.
City Manager Kimbra McCarthy sent a letter to the district on the day of the school board meeting, writing that the city hadn’t been notified about the proposed policy changes and raising concerns about whether the rules were “an attempt to impose requirements on the city” that would impact the city’s role within the joint use agreement.
The city raised particular concerns about whether the inclusion in the administrative regulation of a fee schedule to rent school facilities would interfere with the city’s ability to manage rentals under the joint use agreement.
According to the district, its fees will only apply during school-use hours – not times when the city is in charge of rentals – and for facilities that aren’t covered under the joint use agreement, like classrooms and multi-use rooms.
The board policy and administrative regulation are necessary for the district to implement and comply with the joint use agreement, board president Devon Conley wrote in a Dec. 8 letter to the city, adding that the city is not required to adhere to the district’s fee schedule.
Following the school board’s vote, the city is now “evaluating these policy changes and confirming that there will not be any unintended consequences regarding the JUA’s intent for community use of the school fields,” Wright told the Voice.
Good summary Zoe.
Article: “Uploaded: Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 1:42 pm”
Meeting: “at a Dec. 7 meeting”
Not very timely.
The MVWSD district leadership is an embarrassment. Anyone who has paid attention to the dynamics over the past several years knows that it is district leadership, not city of MV leadership that led up to this point. Such a sorry state of affairs. Why do homeowners in MV put up with the terrible MVWSD leadership since 2015? We pay very high property tax . Almost as high as LASD property tax. Yet LASD prepares kids better for MVLA. It’s an open secret. The MVWSD parents in the know send their kids to private school, especially during middle school. And once they reach high school, MVLA is great since it has a totally different leader and district . Same kids! Different district once they get to high school. MVWSD board please wake up and hold the supt and his inept admins accountable! Thousands of MV families will thank you!
But will it happen? Probably not.
The MVWSD Governing Board majority sets the policy and ‘direction’ and does the oversight for their one direct employee, the Superintendent.
The last Board election (2022) had ONE person applying for one vacant seat – and one incumbent (Blakely) applying to remain in office. Two positions – two applicants – NO BALLOT ELECTION. Trustee Walk-ons? Is that a great process for community representation and good governance?
The Superintendent and mvwsd have been dragging their feet for YEARS on school fields, every year they were unresponsive from personal experience. It sounds like the city is dragging them forward to do what is right and needed. Mountain View has needed a new superintendent and school-board leadership for a long time.
I have paid attention to the dynamics, and CC is incorrect and has no evidence to support claims. The city manager is the main issue here. She has not been forthright with the school district here. FOR EXAMPLE, she gave no notice to the district that she intended to terminate the agreement. From May to September, she did not reach out to the district to negotiate. She did not incorporate issues surrounding the Civic Center act into the agreement.
The School district is not without fault here, they have been less than clear on what their intentions are. Their understanding (from their lawyer) of the Civic Center act was incorrect.
And by the way CC, lots of people don’t pay high taxes. Just look at anyone that moved here 10 years ago and bought their house for $1MM. They pay half of what you pay.