My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100300
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
CCMIN100300
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:32 AM
Creation date
11/20/2000 5:32:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/3/2000
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN100300
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATFERS <br /> <br />Item 6b <br />Consideration to increase school impact fees to $6.50/square foot for all new <br />residential development, consider other "Points of Agreement", and authorize, <br />where necessary, execution of agreements consistent with the Points of Agreement. <br />('SR00:269) <br /> <br />Michael Roush presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked Mr. Roush if he had included the point that the cap on the <br />square footage had been removed? <br /> <br /> Irk. Roush elaborated that it had been. In the prior agreement, the school impact <br />fec was applied up to 5,000 sq. ft. Many homes in Pleasanton now exceed 5,000 sq. <br />and the new fee will apply to all the square footage. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarvar asked what the troubling issue is that still needs to be resolved? <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that it was to make certain adequate funds are on hand to build <br />facilities in a timely way to meet the demand l~ accornmodate students. If there is a <br />shortfall the school district will not let a contract withont knowledge that funds are <br />available. This agreement should resolve that issue. <br /> <br />Mayor Tarver asked if the previous agreement was deficient in that regard. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush responded that the previous agreement provided a means to fund a <br />shortfall in cash flow. If the developers did not perIbm, the school district and city' could <br />file suit, but until the funds were actually in the bank, the School District would not move <br />ahead to build facilities. <br /> <br /> Mayor Tarver asked if new agreements were being entered into and are old <br />agreements being canoeled because of the fear that the signatom will not abide by them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated the proposed agreements are better assurances that the <br />School District will have funds in the bank so it can build the facilities it needs. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala indleated she has been on Council for four years and on the School <br />Impact Fee Committee that deals with this issue, This issue has been close to her and has <br />been difficult to resolve. The original agreement was reached in 1992, when the District <br />did not think it qualified ~br State funding. That agleemem included a list of facilities, <br />but did not include another high school. She remembered a conversation with former <br />Boardmember Eddinger in which she stated it seemed like the School District and <br />developers were on one side of the table and the City was on the other side. He <br />remembered, when the agreement was drafted, it seemed the City and developers were on <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 4 10/03/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.