Laserfiche WebLink
the option of having the City hold title to the property for the School District until it is needed <br />in order to save the cost of the non-use fee. <br /> <br /> Mr. Eddinger the land would probably not be used and the only accomplishment would <br />be to continue the dialogue for years. Mr. Eddinger indicated School Boards, since 1974, have <br />maintained the property will not be used for a school and that decision is still valid. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico explained that the city boundaries and school district boundaries are almost the <br />same and both the Council and School Board serve the same people. He believed that this <br />property is owned by the people of Pleasanton and the people should be listened to in this <br />process. He felt it was unfortunate that we seem to be fighting among ourselves over issues that <br />affect us all. The issue is concern about the children and their education. He believed that there <br />is no free ride and someone must pay. The people of Ple~anton have always paid for their <br />schools and that can be done by a State bond measure, a local bond measure, or through <br />continued growth to generate developer fees. He has worked on the liaison committee with the <br />School District and on the committee that developed the school fees agreement. He believes <br />there is flexibility in the agreement and the ability to amend it to make it right for the city. He <br />is concerned about the relationship between the City Council and School Board and does not <br />want to jeopardize the cooperative efforts. He expressed concern about the process followed to <br />determine what property should be surplus. He believed the study results should be updated. <br />This problem has been around for a long time and he did not see a rush to resolve the issue <br />today. He urged reconsideration of the community questions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico was in favor of keeping the property in open status. There are fewer open <br />spaces left and he would like to preserve it until a decision is made on its best use. He <br />supported an arrangement to save the School District the use fee and suggested advancing money <br />from City reserves to the School District for computers or other class room equipment if there <br />is a serious need. He wanted to allow more time to complete the General Plan review and other <br />studies affecting schools needs and locations. He did not support the staff recommendation and <br />felt the City should pursue acquisition of the property and strongly urged cooperation and more <br />open dialogue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver did not believe the site was the fight place for a park. However, he wanted <br />to preserve the site. He has seen decisions made before which a body thought was right and was <br />committed to it. He believed there needed to be more discussion and an open forum. When <br />there is a number of people all over the community who object to the decision, he believes it <br />is necessary to continue the discussion to be sure all are heard and involved in the process. <br />Funding for schools is a tremendously complex issue. He realized the School District's need <br />to get money from the site to use for equipment and programs for all the children in the <br />community. Mr. Tarver realized those decisions were to be made by the School Board. <br />However, he really wanted a way to encourage more dialogue. He appreciated that the people <br />in the Del Prado area wanted a school, not a vacant lot, and they have wanted it for a long time. <br />If the School Board agreed to put a school there, the people would do everything they could to <br /> <br />12/06/94 <br /> - 14 - <br /> <br /> <br />