Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
4) The reorganization of the districts will preserve each affected district's ability to <br /> educate students in an integrated environment and will not promote racial or ethnic <br /> discrimination or segregation. <br /> 5) Any increase in costs to the state as a result of the proposed reorganization will <br /> be insignificant and otherwise incidental to the reorganization. <br /> 6) The proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound education <br /> performance and will not significantly disrupt the educational programs in the <br /> districts affected by the proposed reorganization. <br /> 7) Any increase in school facilities costs as a result of the proposed reorganization <br /> will be insignificant and otherwise incidental to the reorganization. <br /> 8) The proposed reorganization is primarily designed for purposes other than to <br /> significantly increase property values. <br /> 9) The proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound fiscal management <br /> and not cause a substantial negative effect on the fiscal status of the proposed <br /> district or any existing district affected by the proposed reorganization. <br /> Leoni offered that the Town made a compelling argument for reorganization but noted <br /> that it was possible to meet all of the criteria requirements and still have the <br /> reorganization application denied at the discretion of the State Board of Education. Leoni <br /> suggested fiscal issues were the most significant challenge to reorganization in Los Altos <br /> Hills. <br /> Leoni explained the area of election for reorganization. The most likely scenario if the <br /> application for reorganization was approved was that the election would be limited to Los <br /> Altos Hills residents, The approval of the reorganization would carry with it the <br /> presumption that the Town was the only affected territory. <br /> Leoni summarized the reorganization vehicles available to the Town. They included: a <br /> 25% Petition of the registered voters in the territory to be reorganized; 10% Petition of <br /> the registered voters in the affected districts which went to the County Committee and <br /> could potentially be denied; a Resolution of the City Council or County Board of <br /> Supervisors; and, a reorganization motion by the County Committee acting alone. Leoni <br /> explained that if the Resolution was accepted by the County Committee, the Committee <br /> would be required to develop the plans and recommendations for the reorganization but if <br /> it was denied, it would stop there. The denial by the County Committee however did not <br /> preclude the Town from moving forward with the 25% Petition. Leoni clarified that the <br /> County Committee could only make recommendations on the 25% Petition with the final <br /> decision resting with the State Board of Education. The final approval of the <br /> reorganization would be voted on by the residents of Los Altos Hills. <br /> Leoni reviewed Council's options for "next steps" in the process. She suggested that the <br /> fiscal issues be assessed, boundaries determined, and a full analysis of the nine criteria be <br /> completed. Leoni added that Council and voters would then need to determine the best <br /> reorganization vehicle for the Town. <br /> • <br /> 3 <br /> City Council Meeting Minutes <br /> February 9,2006 <br /> I <br />