CCMIN100300 - Laserfiche WebLink

the same side of the table. She asked what it would take to get all interested parties on the same side of the table to do what is best for the children of Pleasanton. She believed these Points of Agreement finally meet the needs of the conuntmity. It provides flexibility for the School Board to meet the needs of the kids when they arrive. She said these negotiations were not easy. The $6.50 per square foot figure was suggested by a developer in Pleasanton and she thanked him for that. She hoped Council can put all that has happened in the past behind it. There is an agreement now that will give the City what it needs. Ms. Michelotti indicated she has also followed this issue for years and echoed the comments of Ms. Ayala. She agreed this was not an easy task, but from the beginning, people were focussed on what is best for this community. There is a projected surplus of funds instead of a shortfall and it is time to get the infrastructure built that is needed. She thanked everyone involved, including the developers and the School Board. Ms. Dennis indicated she noticed some troubling issues from the past have been resolved in this agreement. In particular, some funds would have been reimbursed and schools can actually be built, as opposed to simply being funde& That makes the issue of the provision of facilitias much more timely. She believed ramoval of the cap on square footage was a good idea and the advancement of funds are interest free, which is a very important point. There have been many changes that were very worthwhile. The proposed agreement was unanimously supported by the School Board and that is an important point. Mr. Pieo asked if the original agreement was being amended or are new agreements being created? Mr. Roush said the existing Cooperative Fee Agreement would be amended to incorporate the changes set forth in the staff report. The agreement would then be relbrmatted and would include the added provisions. At this point it is unclear if the City would need to be a signslot on a revised agreement between the School District and individual developers. The School District has developed a "girl agreement" between the District and developers, Hc didn't know if the City needed to sign any other agreement other than what it is already a party to. If that is necessary, so long as it agrees with the Points of Agreement, staff would be authorized to sign a new agreement. If there are differences, then it would come back to Council for its concurrence. Mr. Pico inquired about the City"s role in the future agreements and why the City would be a named party. It appears it is the School Dist~ct's responsibility to fund the facilities and the City appears to be giving up its right to challenge the adequacy of school facilities. He asked what the City is gaining or losing and what is the City's role? He preferred to see final documents before authorizing their execufmn. Mr. Roush explained there is no significant role for the City in the amendments to the Cooperative Fee Agreement. It might be simpler if the City were taken ont of the agreement entirely. Pleasanton City Council 5 10/03/00 Minutes