My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN060498
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
CCMIN060498
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:27 AM
Creation date
2/3/1999 4:46:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/4/1998
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Haugen said on page 3, second paragraph of the staff report, she would like the <br />words "state school bond election" include in the report <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked for Mr. McCurtain to clarify what the school impact fees pay <br />versus class size reduction. Under the current agreement the funds are used for growth to the <br />City. The money is not used to reduce class sizes. <br /> <br /> Dr. McCurtain said when the agencies were working on the developer fee agreement <br />class size reduction was not even being discussed at the state level. But Measure B includes <br />funds for facilities. Therefore portables can be used to reduce class sizes. As the schools are <br />rebuilt under Measure B, the portables will be made permanent and look like the rest of the <br />schools. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kernan felt both sides should be congratulated. This development fee agreement sets <br />a good example. Both sides have left money on the table and both sides perceive the agreement <br />is fair. He personally thanked everyone who put the fee into place. <br /> <br />5. Priorities for the City Schools Liaison Committee <br /> <br /> Dr. McCurtain said a Liaison Committee was made up of four representatives, two. from <br />the City and two from the School District. The committee developed a list of projects it would <br />like to work on during the year. Then both agencies were asked to prioritize the projects and <br />bring back for discussion and adoption at a joint meeting. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala indicated Ms. Bassett had suggested having quarterly meetings for the Liaison <br />Committee. The committee felt this was a good idea, so as issues arise they could be discussed <br />and the priorities could be adjusted as necessary. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti said one of the greatest benefits of the Liaison Committee is that it gives <br />the committee the ability to discuss issues together and come up with creative solutions so <br />projects can move forward in a positive way. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern said the committee was looking at holding its meetings on Thursday <br />nights in mid-September, early December, March and May. She felt the committee enjoyed <br />getting together. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala felt this gave the community a chance to address both agencies at the same <br />time, which is important. <br /> <br /> Ms. Haugen liked the idea of having four meetings if it were possible. She liked the <br />Liaison Committee looking at the projects. The School District does not have a lot of flexibility <br /> <br />Joint Meeting 18 06/04/98 <br />School Board/City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.